Death of a Member: Lord Elder
 - Announcement

Lord McFall of Alcluith: My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Elder, on 24 October. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to, and thanking, the staff and Members of the House, and the London Ambulance Service, who provided immediate assistance to Lord Elder when he became unwell yesterday evening, ensuring that he could be transferred to hospital, where he sadly later died. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.

European Court of Human Rights
 - Question

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: To ask His Majesty’s Government what further consideration they have given to the role of the European Court of Human Rights in considering cases from the United Kingdom.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: And thanks to you too, Lord Speaker. We are filled with deep sadness at losing a treasured friend and colleague—but Murray would have been the first to say, “Get on with it, George!”, so I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, in the same spirit, I shall answer straightaway. The United Kingdom has a long-standing tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected domestically and are fulfilling our international human rights obligations. The Government remain committed to a human rights framework that is up to date, fit for purpose and works for the British people.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who has been very helpful on this issue in the past. Only four cases have gone from the UK to the court of human rights, whereas it is vital for other countries that are not so good at giving their citizens proper human rights. As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, knows, we have now nominated John Howell MP, the leader of the delegation from the United Kingdom to the parliamentary assembly, to be the next European  commissioner for human rights. Does not it undermine all that when Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch keep on talking about withdrawing from the convention on human rights, apparently in some sort of bid for leadership?

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, I have stated the Government’s position, which is that we are members of the convention, and that is also reflected in the Good Friday agreement and the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU. There is no change in that position, and the statements to which the noble Lord refers do not reflect the position of the Government.

Lord Morgan: My Lords—amazing! There were no interruptions. I very strongly support the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Foulkes, who is in effect asking the British Government to obey the law made by Conservative Governments of which the Prime Minister was Sir Winston Churchill. Is not it extraordinary that Cabinet Ministers are flouting the law and, in effect, forcing their own Government to break their word?

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, respectfully I do not accept that the Government are flouting the law. The United Kingdom has the lowest per capita number of cases in front of the court of human rights. We represent 0.1% of the court’s caseload. As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said a moment ago, it is very important to encourage other countries to obey the law. We continue to play a very large part in the convention and in the Council of Europe, and we support its work across the board. I just add that the situation has changed very significantly since the aftermath of the Second World War, when Sir Winston led that particular initiative. One has to bear in mind that institutions must respond to international changes and developments.

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: My Lords, now that we have thankfully seen the back of the Bill of Rights Bill, do the Government accept that the UK’s commitment to the binding undertaking in Article 46 of the convention to abide by final decisions of the Strasbourg court was in fact unquestionably threatened by that Bill? Does the noble and learned Lord also agree that that commitment is a vital safeguard for people in the UK, despite the small number of cases in the Strasbourg court affecting the UK today, against the abuse of human rights by Governments of whatever political persuasion in the future?

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, as long as the Government are party to the convention, of course we respect Article 46. I do not accept that the Bill of Rights Bill, subsequently withdrawn, in any way undermined our commitment to the convention; it merely rebalanced the various rights and duties as set out in the UK Human Rights Act.

Lord Jackson of Peterborough: My Lords, the House will know that the Minister of the Interior in France has speculated on the use of primary legislation to disapply some aspects of the European convention  in the case of France, because of the immigration crisis in that country. Is it not incumbent on our own Government to at least investigate whether, in the UK’s national interest, we could do something similar?

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, the Government have noted the remarks by the Minister of the Interior for the French Government and we emphasise that it is important to pursue dialogue with international partners to ensure that the framework for dealing with these difficult matters is properly up to date. As my right honourable friend the Minister for Immigration said in the other place yesterday, we work closely with friends and allies to ensure that this is the case.

Lord Watts: My Lords, what happened to collective responsibility in the Cabinet? Is it not appropriate that either the Home Secretary goes or the Prime Minister goes?

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, we are discussing the Human Rights Act and the convention at the moment, and I am not able to comment any further on collective responsibility.

Lord Lansley: My Lords, I declare an interest in that John Howell was my Parliamentary Private Secretary and remains a good friend. Does my noble and learned friend agree that his nomination is a manifestation of the Government’s continuing commitment to the convention and, indeed, to the principles that it enshrines?

Lord Bellamy: My Lords, I entirely agree.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, when I visited the Strasbourg court some while ago, it was full of enthusiasm about the good co-operation between our courts and the European Court of Human Rights. I was told there that any weakening of this country’s commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights would encourage the notorious abusers of human rights to say, “If the Brits don’t go along with it, why should we?” That is why it is so damaging when Cabinet Ministers make the comments that they have done.

Lord Bellamy: I entirely accept that dialogue is important. We have a very productive dialogue with the European Court of Human Rights. It has touched recently on the important question of Rule 39, and it has been a very constructive dialogue which I hope will continue.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, asked a question about France and how it is seeking to rebalance its relationship. I listened very carefully to the noble and learned Lord’s answer to my noble friend’s Question. He talked about an up-to-date human rights framework and went on to describe the now rejected Bill of Rights as a rebalancing of rights. Are these hints that we might see some legislation in the forthcoming King’s Speech seeking to rebalance those rights?

Lord Bellamy: It is probably no surprise to say that I am not privy to the contents of the King’s Speech but. as far as I am best aware, the answer to the noble Lord’s question is no.

Baroness Chakrabarti: My Lords, I remind the noble and learned Lord that his boss, the Lord Chancellor, appeared before the Justice and Home Affairs Committee of this House just before lunchtime. I urge noble Lords to read that evidence and take heart from it, and I urge the Minister to do so too. I hope his words will be taken forward as commitment to the ECHR, and that Section 3 of the Human Rights Act will not keep being disapplied from future Bills in this House.

Lord Bellamy: As ever, I am happy to take the advice of the noble Baroness and read the evidence very carefully.

Bishop of Leeds: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that global and regional challenges need global and regional solutions, and that individual countries seeking to disapply do not help the situation?

Lord Bellamy: As I have just said, ideally, international collaboration and joint solutions are far preferable to unilateral action.

Lord Lexden: My Lords, notwithstanding my noble and learned friend’s comments about the possible need for change due to the passage of time, should we not always remember that it was a very distinguished Conservative, David Maxwell Fyfe, later Viscount Kilmuir and Lord Chancellor in this House, who drafted much of the present convention?

Lord Bellamy: I entirely agree with my noble friend.

Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway: My Lords, will the Minister undertake to educate Cabinet colleagues about the specific impact that leaving the convention would have on the Good Friday agreement, and on our trade and co-operation agreement with the EU? I refer him to the Institute for Government, which has recently published analysis that says it would have a huge destabilising and damaging impact.

Lord Bellamy: Not being a member of the Cabinet, I cannot give the noble Baroness that undertaking, but I am sure the Government as a whole are well aware of the implications of what we are discussing.

Polish Jewish Holocaust Victims: Stolen Property
 - Question

Baroness Deech: To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of progress made at the International Terezin Declaration Conference in November 2022  towards securing from the government of Poland (1) restitution, (2) compensation, or (3) commemoration, of property stolen from Polish Jewish victims of the Holocaust.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, it is this Government’s assessment that there has been no progress on these important issues in Poland itself following legislation passed in 2020 which closed the door to any restitution or compensation claims. However, we continue to urge the Polish Government to take steps to ensure that claims are addressed. My noble friend Lord Pickles, the UK Special Envoy for Post-Holocaust Issues, raised this in a meeting with the Polish ambassador on 3 August. He will raise it again during his visit to Poland this week.

Baroness Deech: Continuing the theme of breaches of human rights, Poland is the only modern European country not to fulfil its moral and legal duty in relation to property. I have been asking this question for 14 years: asking the Government to take action on behalf of thousands of dispossessed victims, both Jewish and non-Jewish, and Poland has responded by putting more and more obstacles in the way of claims by legislating against them and even making it an offence to discuss Poland’s involvement—if it was—in the Holocaust. New Prime Minister Tusk promises to restore the rule of law and take Poland forward to liberal democracy, so, rather than just attending conferences with supporters, will the Government reopen direct negotiations with Prime Minister Tusk and raise at the Council of Europe Poland’s human rights failure to honour the obligation to restore property? It is a stain on Poland’s record.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, the noble Baroness will also recognise, as I did when I was preparing for this particular Question, exactly how her sentiments were similar to my sentiments, in that I have had to respond on a number of occasions in different ministerial portfolios on this question. The new Government are being formed. Obviously, the results are still being taken forward and different parties and alliances are coming together. The clear indication is very much that Mr Tusk may well emerge in forming the new Government. We will of course continue to prioritise it.
I would say to the noble Baroness that it is not just about attending meetings or conferences. The noble Baroness will know of the direct leadership of my noble friend on this issue. We take a strong stand on the issue of property restitution, in line with our unwavering commitment to supporting Holocaust survivors and families, and we will continue to do so in the months and years ahead.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, three years ago, the noble Baroness raised the question of the US legislation, and the Minister gave a sort of equivocal reply then. Clearly, this is something that should be reported on a regular basis. I ask the Minister to examine what the US was able to do in 2017, five years  ago, and ensure that this Parliament can take up its responsibilities. We should not forget that the declaration requires us to do something; it is not simply a matter left to Poland.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, equally, the noble Lord will recognise, first of all, that I agree with his sentiments, but the Terezin Declaration was signed by 47 countries. It puts obligations on each country, including us, and I have given assurance again today about the importance of restitution and the United Kingdom Government’s position on this. We will also have a moment of focus next year when we take on the presidency of the IHRA, which will allow us again to prioritise this particular issue. Of course, we look at countries and the legislation they have proposed. Let us not forget also that Poland has signed this declaration. It is of course non-binding: nevertheless, I assure the noble Lord that we are looking at all avenues to see how we can make the case most effectively. One hopes that the new Government in Poland will reflect on their responsibilities again.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: My Lords, I pay tribute to the persistence of the noble Baroness. The Commission for Looted Art in Europe, whose work I commend, has been lobbying very hard for the implementation of the legal agreements that have been made. There has been European Union legislation, which Poland should be held to account to implement. What mechanisms are there when it comes to the United Kingdom, not only for public collections to make sure that they are properly audited, but also the private sector trade, sometimes far too regrettable, in looted goods? What mechanisms are there within the TCA with the European Union that we negotiated that will ensure that there are full audit trails for any goods? When we are negotiating bilateral trade agreements going forward, I have not yet seen any mechanisms in place through which this will be able to be reported on. I am very happy to discuss this separately with trade Ministers, but this surely is an area where there should be no loopholes.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I agree with the noble Lord about identifying where we can strengthen our legislation and legislative approach. Also, when it comes to issues of agreements, I will follow that up with our colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade. The noble Lord makes a more general point about how we can hold countries also to their responsibilities. One does hope for this. As I said, it is a non-binding declaration: nevertheless, the countries that have signed up have taken action. When it has come to issues of culture and books—there was a particular issue with the Library—we ourselves as a Government have ensured that those artefacts are fully protected and sustained, and indeed, where we can find true ownership, are returned.

Lord Grade of Yarmouth: My Lords, after years and years of pressing Polish Administrations to move on this issue, as Poland is the only country that has not in Europe, out of those discussions the Government must have some idea of what objections the Poles have got to acceding to their obligations.  I wonder whether the Minister could enlighten the House and tell us what the arguments are that Poland is putting forward and has done over past decades as to why it refuses to accept its obligations.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, many agreements were signed after the Second World War. Often, different Governments in Poland have sought to point to these issues having been settled. This declaration makes sure that the legacy that remains is kept at the forefront of Governments’ minds; as I said in my Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, Poland passed legislation to the contrary in 2020. Of course, it remains at the behest of the Polish Government to look at legislation once again. There is a new Government in place and we will certainly once again make the case to them directly.

Asylum Seekers: Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity
 - Question

Lord Cashman: To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have (1) to maintain, and (2) to enhance, the protection of asylum seekers who would risk ill-treatment if returned to a country of origin because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Lord Murray of Blidworth: The Government are committed to delivering an asylum system that continues to protect individuals from persecution, including that based on sexual orientation and gender identity. At the same time, we remain determined to tackle illegal migration so that we deter individuals from risking their lives making dangerous channel crossings.

Lord Cashman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I ask this Question in relation to assurances given during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill through your Lordships’ House, in particular on LGBT+ asylum seekers. I remain deeply concerned given the recent statements made by the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, in the United Kingdom and the United States and the misrepresentation—indeed, the belittling —of the discrimination experienced by women and LGBT+ people, which, I believe, undermine the assurances given. Therefore, having given the Minister sight of my Question because I believe that we need to detoxify this issue, I ask the Government for an unequivocal reassurance that they will abide by the commitments made to this House and will maintain the principle of assessing the risk of persecution faced by women and LGBT+ people, which is established in law and which I believe forms the basis of a humane, comprehensive asylum policy.

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me sight of his Question in advance. I can assure noble Lords that the cornerstone  of the asylum consideration process remains the requirement to establish a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason set out in Article 1A(2) of the 1951 refugee convention and enshrined in last year’s Nationality and Borders Act. There has been no downgrading of the threshold. We do not return asylum seekers to their home countries if their sexuality or gender would place them at risk of future serious harm or persecution. This is of course the principle derived from the case of HJ (Iran), which we discussed during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill. Nor would we relocate someone to a safe third country if there was a real risk of their suffering serious and irreversible harm if they were removed from the United Kingdom.

Lord Lexden: My Lords, is it not the case that many LGBT people seeking asylum do not have access to legal advice to help them prepare for interviews in which they must explain convincingly why they fear persecution in their own countries? Has the Home Office made any assessment of the impact that speeding up asylum processing will have on those who lack legal advice as they prepare for their interviews?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: Legal advice is certainly an issue we are aware of, and assistance is provided to those making applications. It may be of note to my noble friend that the number of LGB claims in 2022 almost doubled—an 89% increase compared to 2021. Thus, in 2022, 2% of asylum claims in the United Kingdom—1,334 claims—included sexual orientation as part of the basis for the claim. There do not appear to have been any issues concerning representation, given the increase in the number of such claims.

Baroness Hussein-Ece: My Lords, can the Government look further at implementing compassionate, community-based alternatives to detention, as recommended in the evaluation published by the UNHCR earlier this year of the two Home Office funded pilot projects which ran from June 2019 to June 2022?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: As the noble Baroness will recall, as part of the structure of the Illegal Migration Act detention forms an important part of the deterrent effect to dissuade people from crossing the channel. Of course, detention should only be done when it is necessary. In these circumstances the Government take the view that it is.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, while the Minister’s earlier remarks were very welcome, feeding the culture of disbelief in the Home Office, as the Home Secretary did, too often means that women who claim asylum on the basis of sexual orientation have their claims wrongly refused. What steps will the Government take to tackle this damaging culture of disbelief?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I do not accept that there is a damaging culture of disbelief. Asylum claims are taken very seriously by the department, as can be seen from the grant rates in asylum cases. We also have a very elaborate appeal structure to independent members of the judiciary, so I do not accept the premise of the noble Baroness’s question.

Lord Duncan of Springbank: My Lords, I am slightly troubled by some of the remarks made by the Home Secretary, to be perfectly frank. There is a phrase, “performative utterance”. By creating a space in which it is possible to doubt and to sow that doubt you are therefore making it discomforting for those who might seek asylum in this country and all the good things which we have stated. I would like to believe that the Home Secretary did not mean what she said. Is the Minister sure that she did mean that?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I am unsure what my noble friend has deduced from the Home Secretary’s speech. She merely observed that the European Court of Human Rights could be more transparent and accountable in how it interprets rights. The Government do not believe that it is necessary to leave the ECHR in order to deliver major priorities such as tackling illegal migration. I can only commend her speech to noble Lords. It repays careful reading.

Lord Coaker: My Lords, does this not go to the heart of the problem the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, has just outlined? The Minister gives us reassurances from the Dispatch Box and, as my noble friend Lord Cashman said, we had many reassurances during the passage of the Illegal Migration Act. However, it does not alter the fact that the Minister’s boss, the Home Secretary, stated that claiming asylum on the basis of persecution for being gay or a woman would not be sufficient. Who are we to believe? Is the Minister making up policy different from that of the Home Secretary, or will he now go back to her and say that this House demands an asylum system based on the principles we have always had—that where anybody faces persecution, this country offers a safe haven?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I fear that the noble Lord has not read the Home Secretary’s speech closely enough. She asserted that there exist interpretative shifts away from persecution in favour of discrimination, and from well-founded fear towards a credible or plausible fear, and there may be a need to tighten the definition of who qualifies for protection.

Lord Hayward: My Lords, the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, refers to ill treatment and sexual orientation. When I steered through this Chamber the same-sex marriage legislation relating to Northern Ireland, a friend of mine was sat in the Public Gallery who would have qualified under that law, being an Ulsterman. He had been subjected to conversion therapy. Can my noble friend please convey a message back to the Government that a large number of people in this House would welcome a conversion therapy Bill being introduced in the King’s Speech?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I am afraid that, just like my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, I do not know what will be in the King’s Speech, but I will certainly take that point back. The Government remain committed to upholding the rights of LGBT+ people and stand with those around the world facing persecution in relation to their sexuality or gender. No one should be persecuted because of their sexuality or gender identity.

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port: On two occasions during this session of Questions, interpretations have been put, one way or the other, on utterances of the Home Secretary. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, has argued his case, and the Minister is doing the same. Can we deduce from these differences of understanding that the Home Secretary has mastered the art of studied ambiguity and is able in her speeches to say just enough of an unacceptable nature to persuade people that that is the policy of the Government she represents? Could the Minister perhaps have a little word with his boss to indicate that people are broadly getting the message that all her speeches need to be interpreted, because none of us understands much about where she wants to go with her political career?

Lord Murray of Blidworth: I am afraid that I must disagree with the noble Lord. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is always admirably clear in her speeches, and there can be no doubt that the issues she discussed in the learned speech she gave in Washington are ones the House should consider closely.

HS2 Ltd: Costs
 - Question

Lord Berkeley: To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports alleging that HS2 Ltd did not disclose accurate cost estimates for the project; and what plans they have to establish an independent inquiry into that company’s actions.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: My Lords, my department and HS2 Ltd have ensured, and will continue to ensure, claims of misrepresentation are taken seriously and thoroughly investigated. Several of the claims recently detailed in the media have already been established as unfounded, including through an independent National Audit Office report in 2018. The HS2 Ltd counterfraud and business ethics team is investigating the most recent allegation about the company, and while this is under investigation it would be inappropriate to comment further.

Lord Berkeley: I thank the noble Baroness for that interesting response. There were a lot of people quoted in the Sunday Times at the weekend, including experienced HS2 directors who have risked their careers and jobs because they are so worried about what went wrong within the company. Noble Lords will know that the Prime Minister criticised HS2 in his speech at the Conservative party conference, and I quote:
“There must be some accountability for the mistakes made, for the mismanagement of this project”.
Those are tough words from the Prime Minister. Can I suggest to the noble Baroness that, if she will not have an independent public inquiry into these allegations, the Government should sue the Sunday Times and take it to court?

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: As I said in my opening Answer, it is clear that people wish to make allegations against HS2 Ltd, and we would absolutely encourage them to come forward with evidence. There are a number of mechanisms by which that evidence can be reviewed and further action taken if needed.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Is my noble friend aware that there have been two reports by the Economic Affairs Committee of this House on HS2—one four years ago and another four years before that? The first report suggested to the Government that it might be more sensible and represent more value for money if the expenditure was concentrated on east-west infra- structure in the north of England, and pointed to the concern about the viability of the business case. The second report—I was chairman and should declare that interest—pointed out that costs were out of control, and that if this was not dealt with it would result in the Government having to cancel the northern routes altogether and be left with a white elephant. Is the lesson here not that the Government should pay more attention to Select Committees of this House?

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: The Government always pay attention to Select Committees of this House. I well remember when my noble friend and I debated that report—indeed, many other noble Lords took part in that debate. That is just one of the many mechanisms that Parliament has, and that wider society has, for holding the Government and HS2 to account.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, when it comes to misrepresentation, can the noble Baroness confirm that Mr Andy Street, the Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands, was persuaded by the Prime Minister not to resign over the decision on HS2 because he was promised that the link to Euston would be continued? It now turns out that that is not certain at all and depends on additional private finance. Why have the Government not been straight about this ridiculous decision not to run it into Euston?

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: As the noble Lord well knows, the decision has been taken to run it into Euston. My colleague the Rail Minister has had a number of meetings with members of the private finance community to start developing plans and options to get that finance together. Battersea Power Station, for example, attracted £9 billion in private sector investment. It is not beyond the wit of man to do something similar, perhaps even more, for the Euston quarter.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that we need to take a very close look at the legislative process for large infrastructure projects and at the whole planning system?

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I thank my noble friend for that question, but it goes slightly beyond the topic at hand. After the hybrid Bill for phase 2a of HS2, both Houses looked at the hybrid Bill system. It is something that we should continue to refine and improve. However, some infrastructure projects are so large that a hybrid Bill is really the only option.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: My Lords, I thought this was good journalism from the Sunday Times, but what do I know? It offered a helpful list of what that £100 billion could have been spent on, including 270,000 nurses, 1 million council homes, 200 hospitals or 10,000 schools. Have this Government looted the public purse for so long—13 years—that they do not understand how important it is to keep track of this sort of alleged corruption?

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: The noble Baroness will be unsurprised to hear that I do not agree. I do not normally comment on media articles, but this was a collection of old allegations which, as I said previously, the National Audit Office has established were unfounded. I also said that HS2 Ltd is looking at the allegation that has not yet been investigated, so I cannot comment on it. However, the noble Baroness is right that some good things have come out of the cancellation of HS2, such as the billions of pounds that we have been able to invest in the rest of the transport network in the north and the Midlands.

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, making even less economic sense than the Government’s decision to truncate HS2 at Birmingham is their vindictive scorched-earth policy to sell off all the land they purchased immediately. Will the Government learn the lessons of railway history? Many good modern rail projects cannot proceed because land was sold off following the Beeching debacle—another expert Tory action. Will the Government learn that lesson and undertake a thorough look at all the pieces of land for all potential future rail projects, many of which they are suggesting, to make sure that no land is sold off that will be needed in future?

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I am delighted to reassure the noble Baroness that that is precisely what we are doing. We have looked at the land for phase 2a and concluded that we do not need it for other rail projects. Therefore, safeguarding will be formally lifted. However, we will not lift the formal safeguarding for phase 2b until next summer, because there is a job of work to be done. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: the Government will not sell off the land until we have established which bits will be needed for projects such as Northern Powerhouse Rail.

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, on top of the financial fiasco surrounding HS2 that has already unfolded, it appears that the Government are about to add what High Speed Rail Group calculated as more than £100 million of further losses to the taxpayer in the fire sale of land that had been acquired along the route. Will the Minister respond to comments made by Sir John Armitt and the National Infrastructure Commission that it would be a mistake to sell off the land that the Government bought and that they should keep their options open?

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: The Government are keeping their options open as necessary.

Lord McLoughlin: Will my noble friend assure the House that there is no need for another inquiry into HS2? If anything, there should be an inquiry into how many inquiries there have been into HS2 over the course of its life. However, perhaps an inquiry into the way that the decision was made to not continue with the rest of HS2 would be appropriate. The company for HS2, the Department for Transport and the Treasury will always have the National Audit Office operating and keeping a watchful eye on them, as was made so clear by the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Meg Hillier, just a few days ago. I declare my interest as a former Secretary of State for Transport.

Baroness Vere of Norbiton: I cautiously agree with my noble friend that there have been an enormous number of inquiries into HS2 over time. However, so many of them were needed, and indeed will continue to be so. There is an enormous amount of scrutiny of HS2 Ltd, not only from the Public Accounts Committee, where the senior responsible officer, the Permanent Secretary, appears and will appear next month, but from the Transport Select Committee, the committee of your Lordships’ House, and other bodies such as the National Audit Office. I am sure that their scrutiny will continue, and rightly so.

Children’s Health: Ultra-processed Foods
 - Question for Short Debate

Baroness Jenkin of Kennington: To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of ultra-processed foods on children’s health.

Baroness Jenkin of Kennington: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords participating in today’s debate, apologise that they have only four minutes each, and thank those who have provided briefing. I am grateful to the First Steps Nutrition Trust, which pointed out to me that the focus of today’s debate should really be on how diets high in UPF negatively impact children’s health, rather than focusing on individual products. Its report, published in June this year, has helped to shape the debate and inform us all.
Speaking in a debate in 2016 I cited a TV series called “Junk Food Kids” and highlighted how a poor diet was leading to poor outcomes. In 2017 I chaired a report for the Centre for Social Justice called Off the Scales: Tackling England’s Childhood Obesity Crisis. It all seemed bad then, but the situation today is so much worse. Fortunately, we now know more about what is driving it, thanks to more than a decade of research amounting to many hundreds of papers linking increased consumption of ultra-processed foods to bad health outcomes.
There continues to be a debate about the definition of UPF, but I do not intend to go too far down that rabbit hole. There is a definition accepted by UNICEF, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization, many  foreign Governments including those of France, Canada and Belgium, and research groups at Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Imperial, UCL and many other leading universities.
While the formal definition is long, a good working definition is that a food is probably ultra-processed if it contains at least one additive that you would not find in a domestic kitchen. But the additives are just part of the problem: these products are made by large corporations in a system in which all the incentives are financial. The additives signal a process in which every product is engineered to maximise consumption: the flavour, colour, taste, softness, texture and even marketing are all optimised to increase profit.
There are undoubtedly some ultra-processed products that are less harmful. I expect the Minister will mention wholemeal bread or baked beans in his response, but the evidence refers to a pattern of eating. People do not eat just one food; they eat diets, and the evidence is clear that a diet high in ultra-processed food and drink is driving not just a pandemic of weight gain but a huge number of other problems, from cancer and metabolic diseases to anxiety, depression, dementia and an early death.
Industrialised wholemeal bread does contain grains linked to good health, but it is also soft and energy-dense and contains emulsifiers, around which there are increasingly credible health concerns. No one is calling for these foods to be banned, but rather for the public to be made aware of the growing evidence around the risks and for non-ultra-processed versions of food and drink to be made affordable, accessible and convenient to everyone. No one in the UK should struggle to afford or access real food.
Global consumption of heavily processed products such as cereals, protein bars, fizzy drinks, ready meals and fast food has soared. In the UK, 60% of the average diet now consists of UPF and for some, especially people who are younger, poorer or from disadvantaged areas, including food swamps where it is hard to find a choice of food, a diet comprising as much as 80% UPF is typical. It should be the reverse, but no wonder this is the case when 70% of the UK’s largest food companies’ products are ultra-processed. What we eat is a reflection of what food companies make. If they make majority UPF, is it a surprise that our diets mirror that? These companies literally make most of what we eat: 75% of calories consumed globally come from six companies.
The hyper-palatability of food designed to appeal to children drives them to eat more. A recommended portion size of Coco Pops for an adult is 30 grams, basically a very large spoonful, but does anyone know a child who will stop at that? I doubt it. Does anyone actually weigh their child’s breakfast cereal? Similarly, a recommended serving of Pringles is 13. Has anyone in the history of eating crisps ever counted the number they eat? There is now very good evidence, including a paper published last week in the BMJ, that for many people these products are addictive. Try telling a child to eat a single bowl—it is like recommending to smokers that they stick to one cigarette. These products are designed and marketed to be consumed in excess.
As the recent Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition report says:
“The observed associations between higher consumption of (ultra-) processed foods and adverse health outcomes are concerning”.
Would anyone disagree? It would be interesting to know why the report did not recommend new actions to address UPF consumption given that many Governments have, including that of our nearest neighbour, France.
I turn to older children and young people, more than a third of whom now leave primary school with a weight classed as overweight or obese. Many children living in the most deprived areas are disproportionately affected. Many of these children experience stunting of up to 9 centimetres, so they are not just obese but shorter than ever before as a result of diet. These children and those older are exposed to junk food advertising all the time—bombarded, in fact. It pops up on their feeds hundreds of times a day via TikTok and other social media sites.
We know that advertising is effective—otherwise, why would it exist? I quote two teenagers, supporters of Bite Back, on their exposure to such advertising. They said:
“Scrolling on UberEats and Pinterest late at night. The donuts look delicious and I wouldn’t mind grabbing a bite. These adverts are very enticing and they are making my mouth water”,
and:
“I saw this Magnum advert on Instagram and it made me crave ice cream. It made me feel a bit peckish and definitely activated the midnight cravings … I would definitely buy these if I saw them in the shops”.
Both doughnuts and Magnums are UPF.
The counterargument comes entirely from the industry making money from these products, leading to a pandemic of diet-related disease, and the people and institutions they fund. If you are on the same side as a charity funded by a soft drink manufacturer and a sugar producer, you need to ask yourself some questions. These groups propose that sugar, fat and salt are the only determinants, but we know that mixtures of just sugar, fat and salt are not very tasty. They need texturing, emulsifying, flavouring, colouring, flavour enhancing and marketing to drive excess consumption. These are just some of the ultra-processes that turn real food into addictive substances.
Those groups propose that processing is fine, which it is. Processing is ancient and has shaped our bodies. Humans have to process our food. Ultra-processing is what happens when transnational food corporations with obligations to investors need to generate financial growth. They say that a ban would be harmful. It would. This is, tragically, the only affordable available food for many people. They say that those who want to regulate the companies that make UPF want to ban brown bread and baked beans. These are straw man arguments. No one is calling for a ban. No one is that brown bread is poisonous. No one is advising against eating baked beans. But as a category of food, there is a huge amount of evidence that UPF is linked to negative health outcomes and that it needs some light-touch regulation, such as a marketing ban for kids, a warning in the national nutrition guidance and effective labelling.
The independent groups—scientists, NGOs and activists not funded by the industry—all agree that the science around UPF is robust. In the UK, we are so saturated in industry messaging that it seems that the science is controversial. It is not. Of course, there are  many more questions to answer, but we did not need to understand how smoking causes cancer to warn the public that it does.
Many ultra-processed products are high in fat, sugar and salt, so the Government should absolutely continue implementing the current policies, including the HFSS advertising and promotion restrictions that have been delayed. We need urgently to follow other Governments globally who have included advice to reduce UPF consumption in their national nutrition guidance. Latin America presents a wealth of examples of how to do this. Given that the UK consumes most of its calories from UPF, there must also be viable alternatives for everyone. Making non-ultra-processed food and drink affordable, accessible and convenient to all is critical, and unleashing business incentives so that companies can profit sustainably from making non-ultra-processed products could be game-changing.
We are able in one hour only to scratch the surface of the problems of a diet rich in UPF. If the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and I are able to persuade the Liaison Committee of the merits of a special inquiry into the subject, we will have the opportunity for a much deeper dive. For those who would like to hear and question Dr Chris van Tulleken, author of the bestselling book Ultra-Processed People, I am delighted that he will be speaking to a joint committee of the APPG on Obesity and the Food and Health Forum on 21 November at 5 pm.
To summarise, for the past half-century, dominant strands of nutrition science and policy have focused narrowly on single ingredients as determinants of health. Within this reductive paradigm, nutrients are systematically decontextualised from the foods, dietary patterns, social contexts and food systems in which they are embedded. This perspective has singularly failed to curb rising levels of obesity and dietary ill-health. Research on UPF and related issues is beginning to reveal why. I look forward to noble Lords’ contributions and to the Minister’s response.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I agree with every word of the noble Baroness’s excellent speech, as noble Lords will hear. We humans have evolved, along with our diets and our gut microbiome, over millennia. Ultra-processed foods, however, are the new kids on the block, and their availability and ubiquity in our diets correspond exactly to the increase in diet-related diseases. Figures show that 60% of the UK diet is UPF, and it could be worse for children. That corresponds with serious concerns about height and weight revealed by the UK child measurement programme. It is pretty obvious that something is going wrong.
Whenever I raise the topic of ultra-processed foods with the Minister, he replies that the Government cannot take action because it is difficult to define them, since brown bread is an ultra-processed food. I would like to tackle that head on. Brown bread could be ultra-processed, but it does not have to be—it certainly is not in my kitchen. So let us look at definitions. You could say that UPF contains things you would not find in a normal kitchen. That is helpful, but not enough. More helpful is the NOVA system, which puts foods  into four categories, only the fourth of which is ultra-processed. Brown bread is not always found in that group.
NOVA provides a framework for assessing the degree and purpose of processing, and the relation between dietary patterns and health outcomes. It should be seen as complementary to nutrient-based approaches. Some national Governments have already begun to introduce policies informed by NOVA.
Foods and diets are of course complex. Lots of HFSS foods—high in fat, salt and sugar—are UPF, which is often called junk food, and lots of UPF are HFSS, so it is important to untangle the two. One piece of research did that neatly. Two groups of people were given diets for a week that were comparable in fat, sugar, salt and quality and told they could eat as much as they liked. One diet was made of minimally processed foods and the other UPF. Those on UPF ate 500 calories more than the others and gained weight. When they swapped the two groups around, the same thing happened. Dozens more studies have controlled for fat, salt, sugar and diet quality and have still found ultra-processed diets to be strongly associated with poor health. Other research shows that UPF are designed to make people eat more. They are soft and easily digested, taste good, are energy dense and, as has been said, some people become addicted to them.
Not every UPF is bad; it is the quantity and the overarching dietary pattern that matter. Our priority should be rebalancing the diet as a whole, and that is where government dietary guidelines come in. In the UK, reformulation has long been the focus of policy but, given the overlap between UPF and HFSS, reformulation should be only a first step to addressing the health outcomes associated with ultra-processed dietary patterns.
Part of the issue is profit maximisation. The business model is this: you take cheap commodity ingredients, deconstruct them and put them together in a different way, bind them with cosmetic additives and then brand and market the product with the aim of increasing sales and normalising consumption. In a capitalist economy, financial resources flow to the sectors that are the most profitable, and UPF is hugely profitable.
So what to do? Research definitively demonstrates that existing guidelines are inadequate—there is not a word about UPF in government guidelines—so will the Government amend their guidelines to promote the consumption of minimally-processed foods, improve the food in schools and public settings, and implement the existing legislation on advertising junk food on TV and online and relating to “buy one, get one free”? Many people on lower incomes rely on cheap UPF, so policy should not place further burdens on them.

Lord Krebs: My Lords, I declare my interests as recorded in the register.
I shall start by saying what I agree with in relation to the previous two speakers: namely, that unhealthy diets are a major cause of ill health in the UK, estimated to cause 90,000 deaths a year. The risk is increasing—for example, obesity levels have doubled in the last 30 years—and is strongly linked to deprivation.  Children at the age of 11 are twice as likely to be obese if they are in the poorest decile of the population than if they are in the richest decile.
The key question for this debate is: what is the cause of dietary ill health? Is it the content of certain foods—too many calories, too much fat, sugar and salt, and not enough fibre—or the way in which they are made? The UPF concept says it is the latter, but I beg to disagree. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said there is agreement in the scientific community, that is simply not true. I have studied a number of the original papers and shall highlight two problems.
First, numerous studies have shown that there is no agreement on what UPF is. For instance, in a study published in 2022, a panel of nutrition experts agreed on classification on the NOVA scale for only four out of 231 foodstuffs that they were presented with. Even when the experts were given the ingredients of those foods, they agreed on only three out of 120 items.
Secondly, there is no scientific evidence to show that processing is harmful to health. Most of the evidence that claims to show this comes from epidemiological studies following a large cohort of people over many years and looking for correlations between diet and health outcomes. Correlation does not prove causation, of course, so there are criteria, known as the Bradford Hill criteria, that have to be met before one can infer causation.
I have looked in detail at recent very large epidemiological studies conducted in the UK, France, Spain and the United States. Although they all show correlations, they do not meet the Bradford Hill criteria for inferring causation of a link between consumption of ultra-processed food and ill health. Furthermore, these studies, which were set up many years ago—sometimes decades ago—were not designed to look at UPF, so the dietary records of participants did not include references to it. The researchers had to retrofit a categorisation, and I have said how little agreement there is on the NOVA classification scheme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also cited an experimental study carried out by Kevin Hall, but when one reads the paper that study does not show that UPF is harmful. It shows that when people are offered unlimited hyperpalatable food that is high in fat, salt and sugar, they overconsume. They consume more calories; no one disagrees with that and it is hardly surprising, but it has nothing to do with UPF. I therefore agree with the Minister, who has said many times that the real danger in our diets is HFSS, not UPF. For me, the real pity is that the Government, having correctly identified the problem, are doing so little to tackle it. Here I agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
Finally, I have tried to take a dispassionate look at the evidence, and one should always be open to the possibility that the evidence will change. But for now, I conclude that UPF is a red herring in the diet and ill-health debate. Since the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, mentioned addiction, the paper published in the British Medical Journal on 9 October does not say that the UPF category in NOVA is addictive. First, it acknowledges that the DSM-5 manual—the standard manual for mental health problems—does not recognise food addiction. Secondly, it says:
“The UPF category … captures foods that may be unlikely to have strong addictive potential”
and that homemade foods, such as homemade cookies,
“may … be addictive but would not be considered a UPF based on the NOVA classification”.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, in this debate it is very important to consider the science and history of the obesity epidemic. The history is that the food industry in the 1960s promoted a low-fat, low-fibre diet, which makes people eat more and become obese. Science has exposed the errors of the food industry; the science is that when fat enters the duodenum, it releases from the duodenal mucosa a hormone called CCK, which delays the emptying of the stomach and makes the patient feel full early on in a meal. It is a beautiful mechanism for preventing obesity, which is why the food industry hates that mechanism and keeps on recommending a low-fat diet, which is so tasteless that it had to add large quantities of sugar to entice people to eat its rather tasteless products.
A recent study from Canada revealed that thousands of children fed on whole milk, with plenty of fat, were much less likely to be obese than those who were not so fed. Unfortunately, the Department of Health seems to be obsessed with low-fat diets, in spite of the evidence. I even had a letter just last month from a Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, who again recommended a low-fat diet.
The removal of fat and fibre, in the form of wholemeal bread and vegetables, increases appetite and obesity. That is why we must ensure that food contains plenty of fibre and the right kind of fat. Highly processed foods appeared many years later than the beginning of the obesity epidemic and much more work needs to be done to determine exactly how appetite stimulators are supposed to work.
Another important misleading aspect is the great emphasis on telling obese people that the whole subject is so confusing, difficult and multifactorial. It is just telling them, “Well, it’s just one of those things, and you don’t need to bother too much”. They say anyway that it is genetic. What do they mean by that? It does not matter what your genetics are, there is only one way of becoming obese: by putting too many calories into the mouth. We need much more scientific work to reveal how much genetics could increase obesity. There has also been an attempt to glamorise obesity, stating that you can be “fat and fit”. The paper that purported to make that claim is very superficial and incomplete.
In summary, we need to emphasise the fact that the removal of fat and fibre and the insertion of sugar has caused the obesity epidemic. We do not need complicated formulae like BMI. It is best to keep things simple. A simple slogan is: if your waist measurement is more than half your height, you are eating too much of the gross national product and you are on the road potentially to a premature death from a variety of very unpleasant diseases.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, for securing this short debate and for her excellent introduction.  Since very soon after I came into your Lordships’ House, I have been working on a project: to get a Minister to say “ultra-processed foods”. I have hope that we may see that project delivered today, as that is the subject of the whole debate.
I have thrown out a large amount of what I was going to say, because I want to directly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for whom I have the greatest respect. However, I entirely disagree with a large part of what the noble Lord said. We know that there are significant problems with the peer-reviewed research process. We know this from what happened with big tobacco and pesticide companies. We have a huge problem with commercial interests in the research process. If you look behind where most of the attempts to challenge and question the NOVA classification system comes from, you do not have to look very far to find commercial interests.
As one of example of that, just last month in London the Science Media Centre hosted an event questioning whether there was any problem with ultra-processed foods and if they are all absolutely fine. The Guardian looked into this and discovered that three of the five participants on the panel had either received financial support from UPF manufacturers or hold key positions in organisations funded by them. They include companies such as Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Unilever.
I point the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to a specific recent study. The noble Lord suggested that we were talking about either the nutritional content or whether food was ultra-processed. This is a study that covers both areas. The study is by Julia et al in the European Journal of Nutrition. It is based on the French NutriNet-Santé cohort study, so it is an observational study. The conclusions say that
“nutritional quality and ultra-processing should be considered as two correlated but distinct and complementary dimensions of the diet”.
So, yes, the amount of fat, lack of micronutrients and nutritional quality is a problem, but ultra-processing is a problem too. This is a very solid 2023 study demonstrating that.
Very briefly, I want to focus on young children, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, has pointed us to. We have a huge problem with the diet of young children in the UK. That is now demonstrably obvious in all the health dimensions, whether obesity or height. We are not giving children the chance to develop in the way they should.
I will pick out one deeply shocking figure. Think about the size of child between a year and a half and three years old—quite small. Some 65% of one and a half to three year-olds in the UK drink, on average, one adult-sized can of soft drink a day. One of the things that has not been focused on enough is that, as has been said, this is nutritionally attractive and, arguably, addictive—the paper is strong on that. But you are filling a child up with empty calories or, if the drink is low calorie, with no calories at all, and there is no space for the child to eat the vegetables and fruit that they should.
As others have said—I was going to major on this more—look at all the products in supermarkets directed at children, with cartoon characters all over them, and  with messages about health directed at the adults. We are profoundly misleading parents about what their children should be eating—by “we” I mean the multi- national food companies, which are making massive profits from making our children ill.

Lord Evans of Rainow: My Lords, I ask noble Lords to keep note of the four-minute speaking time, please. We still have to hear from the Front Benches and the Minister.

Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I join in thanking my noble friend Lady Jenkin for introducing this debate. I will mention a few aspects: the low-cost food shopping paradox, what the Government should now further do, and the shared threat of ultra-processed foods both here and abroad.
On overweight in childhood, there is a well-known paradox: due to cheap, high-calorie nutrition, food insecurity and obesity come together. That is because, so far, our national food system lacks sufficient incentives for healthy eating for those on low incomes, and it equally fails to provide enough disincentives against unhealthy eating in the first place.
Following this anomaly, inferred government action might appear to be fairly obvious: make healthy and sustainable food affordable, stop the junk-food cycle and invest competently in children’s diets.
As my noble friend Lady Jenkin implied, the Government have to restrict, to a far greater extent than at present, advertisements promoting unhealthy food. On the balance between disincentives and incentives, a good idea would be to increase tax on ultra-processed foods and use this revenue to fund healthy-eating vouchers for low-income families—vouchers that can be traded only for fresh food and vegetables.
The Government must insist on clear and legible shop label warnings against unhealthy foods, including those with hidden sugars. Brazil has warning labels on foods that contain an excess of salt, sugar and saturated fats. We could do the same, with a particular warning on all ultra-processed foods, or at least on those with excesses of salt, sugar and saturated fats—such warnings would, therefore, cover most ultra-processed foods in any case.
The Government ought to invest now in healthy food to be provided by all schools. Current guidelines on school lunches should become stricter, with less ultra-processed foods, or at any rate a reduced availability of foods high in salt, sugar and saturated fats. Then, as has been done in other countries, the Government must update national dietary advice to emphasise fresh or minimally processed foods.
To replace the present negative trend with a positive one, these are just some of the measures that we ought to adopt, along with other relevant expedients. First, does my noble friend the Minister agree that we should do so now and early on in the new Session, and, secondly, within the international community? In thus starting competently to address this shared problem, thereby and to the benefit of so many, the United Kingdom can then provide an example of proper common sense and good practice.

Lord Bird: My Lords, it is interesting that the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, has got this discussion going. I am a bit confused about who we are talking about. I can imagine people who eat poor food—I know them. I come from those people, and they are therefore familiar to me. I have a large extended family where people eat all sorts of muck. I just cannot see where any of the advice I have heard today would fit in.
For instance, I do not know many people, particularly poor people, who would read the back of a packet and make a decision. The reason why they are eating poor-quality food is largely because they are stuck in poverty. The Government could, for instance, invest an enormous amount of money in good food, which could be distributed or made available, a bit like what used to be done after the Second World War—to give people milk, which is what I was brought up on, and capsules and orange juice, which was imposed while you were at school. However, I cannot really see the poor going down the road and picking up their food, unless of course it was cheaper or there were other things that made them think.
What we are always missing, not just in this House or in the other place, is the fact that we do not know how to bring all the elements together to dismantle poverty. One day we have a discussion about the impact of food on poverty, and a discussion about the impact of obesity and where it comes from. That is really interesting. Then another discussion would be about the fact that we know that if your education system is not working then you produce poor people, because you do not skill people away from poverty. The fact is that 80% of all the money spent on poverty in the world is actually to maintain people in the crisis of poverty and make them cope. Very little is spent on prevention or on cure.
If you really think about it, you need a different view of poverty and people who are the victims of poverty. Across the road, for instance, 50% of the people who use St Thomas’ Hospital, if it is an average hospital, will suffer from food poverty. The British Medical Association says that 50% of people who present with cardiac arrest actually suffer from food poverty. I am really glad to be a part of this discussion, but I cannot see how the fracturing down and breaking d will work unless there is unity around getting rid of poverty. That is why I will have a Bill in the next Session calling for a ministry of poverty that will bring everything together: education, housing, food, et cetera.

Earl of Effingham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, for raising this key debate. I am sure that many noble Lords are familiar with the phrase “gut instinct”. The gut is our second brain. It uses the same chemicals and cells as our main brain. It helps us to digest, but also alerts us when something does not feel right. What we put into it is critical.
Noble Lords will also be familiar with the phrase “you are what you eat”. Eating nutritionally balanced and healthy food encourages good bacteria, which in  turn affects the production of good chemicals. When production is optimal, our brain receives messages clearly and distinctly, and we experience a positive mental state. Food changes our mind and our mental health. We should actually say that food is medicine. There is a direct correlation between healthy diet and cognitive learning.
It is crystal clear that it is of the utmost importance for our children to have a healthy, balanced diet. It is therefore a concerning statistic that ultra-processed food accounts for almost two-thirds of what toddlers in the UK eat, and it becomes progressively worse the older they get.
While it is acknowledged that not all ultra-processed foods are harmful, there is agreement that they are typically high in saturated fat, salt and sugar. That is the type of food that can contribute to long-term illness, by changing the micro-composition in the gut, which can then lead to cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Research out early this week suggests that high-fructose corn syrup actually causes biological changes to the body that make it easier to put on weight and harder to lose it. Another worrying statistic shows that, in the past 47 years, average consumption by UK households of ready meals has increased by 549%, while consumption of certain fresh fruit and vegetables has decreased.
That goes some way to explaining the obesity levels in our children. Some 10% of four to five year-olds were obese in 2021; that increased to 23% of 10 to 11 year-olds in the same timeframe. We owe it to our children to give them the best start in life—but having a fit and healthy young population is essential to reducing pressure on the NHS. Obesity currently costs us £6 billion per year, set to rise to £10 billion by 2050. By trying to tackle the issue of our children and ultra-processed food consumption, we will in part tackle childhood obesity and further issues in later life.
Another concern is absenteeism from school due to illness. Almost one in 10 secondary school pupils missed school in the last week of September after sickness absence doubled in just two weeks. Those lost days over the course of a child’s education can have a material impact on their learning and development. If we are able to reduce in some way illness absence through healthier eating, that must be a positive.
If we are to protect the health of our children and prevent diet-related disease and complications, we should be reducing consumption of ultra-processed foods, and combining that with eating more lean meat, fruit, pulses and vegetables. What are the Government doing to educate children in healthy eating and cooking? Education must be key. If people really understood the harm that they are doing to themselves by eating foods that are high in saturated fat, sugar and salt, they might be able to adapt their buying patterns.

Baroness Redfern: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for allowing me to speak in the gap—and my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, for introducing this debate, which raises challenging issues. The importance attached is that the focus should be on trying to  eliminate at the earliest opportunity addictive products that create poor outcomes for our young people and to designate clear information, particularly on labelling on snacky and on-the-go foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt. Good advice labelling, with a typeface large enough to be read, can be really good for families, helping them to make informed choices—and not with a tiny typeface so that it is hidden. This poses a question that needs an answer, of whether there is a case for revisiting our food labelling laws.
The facts are stark, when one in three children leaving primary school is obese. The statistics are truly shocking, particularly when it is noted that evidence found that 64% of school lunches with high calorific value come from ultra-processed foods. There is an opportunity for change—an open door beckons for our young pupils—for schools and public settings to create a ripple effect for new alternative healthy and attractive choices.
The Government have reaffirmed their priority of continued action to reduce the consumption of these highly calorific foods, with their advertising proposals of a watershed of 9 pm on television and UK on-demand programmes. Those restrictions were originally due to come into force in January 2023, but they are now not due for a further two years. Delays are not something that we should be contemplating. Online advertising of unhealthy food and drink products is a further outlet attracting a younger audience.
As we have heard, there are many arenas in which change for good can be made in helping to reduce the number of obese children and reduce sugar content for better oral health, better to minimise the number of teeth extractions that have to be carried out in hospital settings, which can be very upsetting.
If industry does not change, government must dig deep to intervene sooner, as time is ticking on our obesity figures, which are alarming, and the cost for the NHS speaks for itself.

Lord Allan of Hallam: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, for prompting this debate. I shall use my brief remarks to make a modest proposal that I hope will offer the Minister a creative way to address issues related to food quality and health. In short, this is that we should require large retailers to make data about food purchases available, within a controlled framework, to support research and policy development.
The argument for this will be familiar to anyone following the regulation of online services, where we are responding to concerns about the diet of information being served to people and how this may lead to various kinds of harm. The logic for this approach is as follows. Policy-making should be evidence-based, using data both to predict the impact of new measures and to evaluate the effectiveness of previous interventions. Where there is a significant public interest in making policy interventions in an area, this creates the case for requiring organisations to make useful data available. There is a major public interest in understanding the relationship between food consumption and health outcomes for both adults and children in the United  Kingdom. Major retailers have very sophisticated and comprehensive datasets about food purchases that would be of enormous value to researchers and policymakers.
Any concerns about commercial confidentiality can be resolved within a sensible framework, just as they are in other areas, such as banking and online services. Similarly, we can look at good practice elsewhere to ensure that useful data can be provided, while not compromising the privacy of individuals. Companies may be willing to share data in the public interest, and such a voluntary approach is worth exploring in the first instance. If that proves insufficient, a regulatory requirement should be considered. We have many examples to build on of where regulation requires private businesses to provide data to support public safety goals; we can look at financial services and the pharmaceutical industries to see that working well today.
The models that are being developed right now for online services may be especially useful for a read-across to food retailers, given the similar nature of the challenge: we are seeking to identify patterns of harmful behaviour within a very high volume of normally benign activity. I hope the Minister will agree that it is worth some of his department’s time and effort to explore the benefits of this approach. If we can move from anecdote to well-sourced evidence, this will help us in all our work in this place on measures related to health and food consumption. If we are able to take retailer data about food purchasing practice and match that up with health data, which I know the NHS has in abundance, we can start to draw valid conclusions. Whether you are with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, or the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in terms of your starting assumptions, having that data will allow us to have a much better-informed debate. I hope that this is a useful modest proposal that the Minister will look upon kindly.

Baroness Merron: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, on securing a debate on what is clearly an extremely live issue, as we have heard in the many contributions from noble Lords today. There is one point of agreement, at least in the Chamber, and that is that rising obesity is damaging our children’s health and their chances in life. In 2021-22, more than one in 10 four to five year- olds were obese, while a further 12.1% were overweight. Nearly one in four 10 to 11 year-olds was obese, with a further 14.3% being overweight. Those from deprived areas are more than twice as likely to be living with obesity compared with the more affluent, and this is not an acceptable state of affairs.
We know that balance is essential to a healthy diet and that, for most people, cutting out ultra-processed foods entirely is not realistic. As we have heard, people need to be supported to make informed, healthier choices, and wider social determinants—most notably poverty, as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, said—need to be addressed, particularly in the current economic crisis, but the Government have missed some tricks here. They have delayed the ban on junk food advertisements targeted at children and scrapped the health disparities White Paper.
Can the Minister explain how the Government’s decisions will contribute to tackling childhood obesity and improving the health of the nation? In delaying these key measures, have the Government instead got any plans for further policies to address this issue?
In July, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition published the findings of a review into the potential impact of ultra-processed foods on children’s health. It cited limitations in available evidence and recommended that further research should be undertaken in several areas, including in assessing and developing a classification system that can be applied reliably to estimate processed food consumption. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said, the First Steps Nutrition Trust found a strong inverse correlation between the consumption of ultra-processed foods and the nutritional quality of diets. It said also that those who eat a diet rich in UPFs were consuming more calories, mainly due to larger portion sizes, which resulted in weight and body-fat gain. These are important points and I ask the Minister for the Government’s response to these findings, and when can we expect it?
The Health Minister Neil O’Brien MP said that the Government would not hesitate to take action if the evidence suggested that it was needed. In July, the Minister told your Lordships’ House that it was unclear whether UPFs were inherently unhealthy or whether the issue was instead that such foods were typically high in calories, saturated fat, salt and sugar. As the Minister clearly considers that there is uncertainty, what steps will the Government take in order to take action, rather than relying on inaction?

Lord Markham: I too add my thanks to my noble friend Lady Jenkin for bringing this debate forward, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what I feel has been a very interesting debate. We have seen a wide range of different views, which shows that this is a highly complex area. I know we all agree that there are many bad things about ultra-processed foods, but there are many things we do not agree on, such as whether ultra-processed food per se is bad. As brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, there is plenty of evidence that it is not the ultra-processed element that is bad; it is the fact that many of the things inside the foods are bad, namely high levels of fat, sugar and salt. At the same time, some of the things we are putting forward in the Eatwell Guide, such as some breakfast cereals and wholemeal bread, would also be caught under the definition of ultra-processed food.
The real problem is that I have not yet heard—and I am very happy to discuss this—how we could find a workable definition here so we can take the sort of action that we take in other places. What do you try to do when something is bad? You try to tax it, as we did with the sugary drinks levy. You try to restrict product placement and advertising and you try to educate and label—but you can do that only if you have a definition that everyone understands.
The problem is that if on the one hand there are some ultra-processed foods that you are saying you are going to tax so people will eat less of them but on the  other hand there are some that you are trying to promote in the Eatwell Guide, I do not see how that is a manageable system or something that people can understand. What we all totally agree on is the need for education, so that people understand what we are trying to encourage and discourage. What I would like to concentrate on, which is something that we all agree on and that my noble friend Lord Dundee said we need action on, is those foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt, many of which are ultra-processed.
As my noble friend Lord Effingham said, this starts with education. We have got some good examples there. I hope this will answer some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on our schools. Our free school meals are at the highest levels ever, which we know not only addresses food poverty but makes sure that those children are receiving a balanced diet. The fact that all infant school children now receive this is a huge step forward and, as I say, the level of roughly a third of all children receiving free school meals is huge as well.
The other initiatives, such as Healthy Start, helping kids get their five-a-day, are very important to this. Equally, in terms of education, I remember being taught years and years ago at school how to make shepherd’s pie and apple crumble. The advice on teaching children to cook six healthy meals is far more useful than a lot of things we receive in our education; it was definitely far more useful than my very poor efforts at woodwork and metalwork at the time. So I totally back those.
I would also like to talk about the action that we have taken on the bad elements of foods, such as those high in salt, sugar and fat, which really is working. Noble Lords will have heard me mention the sugary drinks levy, which has reduced average sugar levels in these drinks by 46%. Just this weekend, going out to eat Sunday lunch, I swapped from eating a chicken pie, which looked pretty tasty and had more than 2,000 calories in it, and saw that the roast beef had only 1,400—and I did not eat the Yorkshire pudding, so I had even less than that. So, again, these are useful ways forward that help to educate people.
The product placement and positioning steps that we are taking are really tackling 94% of the estimated reduction in calorific intake, and 78% of people are in favour of them. It is early days, because the measures have not been in for long, but what we have seen in early data is that foods that are not high in fat, sugar and salt have gone up by 16% and foods that are high in sugar, salt and fat have gone down by 5.7%. These are early signs, but those product placement steps are working. Those are the things that are impacting 94% of the data. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked about what we were doing about other things such as “buy one get one free”. We all talk about evidence and data: the modelling showed that this would account for less than 5% of our estimated reduction in calorific intake. And there is more to boot, because we are working with industry on this and Sainsbury’s and Tesco have already agreed to do that voluntarily. That means that it accounts for even less. Surely that shows that what we are about is trying to tackle the big things that make a difference.
Mostly importantly of all, as some noble Lords have said, the real prize of course is the reformulation of food. We know that companies are starting to change this. I apologise because I have mentioned this before, and noble Lords will probably hear me say it again in answer to tomorrow’s Question on ultra-processed food, but Mars, Galaxy and Snickers have all changed their formulation. Mr Kipling’s “exceedingly good” cakes are now compliant in their formulation. All these things are making a difference at the industry level.
However, I agree with the helpful suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Allan, that we need to be data driven. I hope that, by sharing some of the statistics, I have shown that we are focusing on the 94% of things that really hit the reduction and that we are data driven. I definitely want to take his suggestion further; perhaps we could meet after the debate. Many people know that Steve Rowe, a former CEO of M&S, has been giving the department some advice. I hope he will help us to convene a round table with relevant CEOs so that we can talk about what might be manageable, because we should be data driven.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bird: we need to look at this holistically and bring all the elements together. The best example I have seen through my work in different departments was the troubled families work I saw early on when I was a non-exec director at what is now DLUHC. It looked at what really had an impact on troubled families—be it something they could do or something in the social, education, health or police space—and tried to look at things across the board. We have to consider some of those ways. So, although I am not quite sure and need to understand more about the work of the Minister with responsibility for poverty, I agree that we need to work in a joined-up fashion.
As ever, if there are any questions I did not manage to answer, I will try to follow up on them in a more detailed letter. I look forward to seeing tomorrow most of the noble Lords who are here today—probably asking me similar questions on ultra-processed food. We are all violently in agreement on the objective: stopping the consumption of unhealthy food. We need to do a bit more work between us on making sure that we really know what we are trying to stop, and the definitions, so that we ensure that any action is evidence-based and makes a difference. At this point, I thank everyone for their input.

Procurement Bill [HL]
 - Commons Reason

Scottish Legislative Consent granted, Welsh Legislative Consent granted in part

Motion A

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: Moved by Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102B in lieu of Commons Amendment 102, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 102C.
102C: Because it is unnecessary to have a specific discretionary exclusion ground for involvement in forced organ harvesting in light of the ground for professional misconduct and the lack of evidence that any supplier to the UK public sector has been involved in forced organ harvesting.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My Lords, the other place has now been clear, for the second time, that it is firm in its position on this amendment. Noble Lords asked the Commons to reconsider, and it has reached the same decision.
The Bill creates new rules for suppliers and contracting authorities that will stay on the statute book for the foreseeable future. We therefore need to be measured and prudent in our approach and avoid imposing further unnecessary bureaucracy on UK businesses that duplicates both the existing provisions in the Bill and the steps being taken outside the legislation.
I commend the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for the debates he has led on organ harvesting. We share a unanimous view that organ harvesting is an abhorrent practice that has no place in our supply chains. Accordingly, if a supplier or one of its connected persons fails to comply with the established ethical or professional standards within its respective industry, including relating to the removal, storage and use of human tissue, the supplier could face exclusion on the grounds of professional misconduct. However, as far as I am aware, no supplier to the UK public sector has been involved in forced organ harvesting. Given that the exclusion grounds in the Bill have been selected based on the areas of greatest risk to public procurement, it is not necessary to single out organ harvesting in this Bill.
The Government are already actively addressing this awful practice. For example, it is an offence to travel outside the UK to purchase an organ, by virtue of new offences introduced by the Health and Care Act 2022. In addition, the Government continue to monitor and review evidence relating to reports of forced organ harvesting and maintain a dialogue with leading non-governmental organisations and international partners on this very important issue.
I make one further remark concerning an issue which, while out of scope of today’s debate, is of significant importance to this Bill and the country’s security. It relates to concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, following recent press coverage regarding surveillance equipment, which I look forward to discussing with him in person tomorrow. On 24 November 2022, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a Statement in the other place instructing government departments to cease deployment on their sensitive sites of surveillance equipment produced by companies subject to the National Intelligence Law of the People’s Republic of China.
During our last debate in this House, I set out the definition of “sensitive sites” to which our commitment would apply and which I am happy to reiterate today. As I said on 11 September, our commitment will apply to government departments and cover their sensitive sites, which are any building or complex that routinely holds secret material or above, any location that hosts a significant proportion of officials holding developed vetting clearance, any location routinely used by Ministers,  and any government location covered under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. I went on to reiterate that our commitment does not extend to the wider public sector. However, in no way is this an endorsement of the use of such surveillance equipment by these organisations or by organisations in the private sector. Indeed, these organisations may instead choose to mirror our action. I believe that some of them already have, including the police.
I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the explanation behind the Motion. She kindly referred to the amendments I tabled on Report following our debate in Committee, which focused on the appalling practice of forced organ harvesting, principally in China, which involves the removal of organs from living prisoners of conscience for the purpose of transplantation, killing the victim in the process. It is state sanctioned, widespread throughout China and has become a multi-billion-pound commercial operation.
We know that the victims are mainly Falun Gong practitioners, but more recently, evidence has indicated that Uighur Muslims are also being targeted on a massive scale. Further to that, there are several pieces of evidence suggesting that Tibetans and house Christians are as likely to be the victims of forced organ harvesting. As the noble Baroness said, my amendment was passed by your Lordships’ House on Report and went to the Commons, where it was rejected. We had another go in September and again, I am afraid, the Commons has reinserted the original provisions in the Bill.
I regret that this has happened for three reasons, the first being the scale of the atrocities being carried out in China and specifically in Xinjiang province. Secondly, Ministers are wrong to dismiss the need for the amendment. Above all else, its passage would have been a powerful signal in the UK and globally of our abhorrence of these awful practices. Thirdly, you cannot consider my amendment on forced organ harvesting without setting it in the context of the Government’s approach to China more generally. The Prime Minister has talked quite tough in recent weeks on the Government’s approach to China. However, the overall approach, to put it at its kindest, is clouded in inconsistency, ambiguity and sometimes downright confusion. That has been reflected in any number of Select Committee reports over the last year or two.
However, I recognise that this has gone as far as I could expect it to go. I am grateful to all those who supported me, particularly my Front Bench, the Lib Dems and many noble Lords around the House. I particularly pay tribute to Lord Bernie Ribeiro, who retired from the House on Monday. He has been a tower of support to me on this very worrying issue over many years. I wish him all the best in his retirement.

Lord Fox: My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for bringing this issue back on a number of occasions. We share the great disappointment that the Government have not seen fit to use their majority to include this in the Bill. As the Minister herself said: at this point there is no such practice going on, so there is no jeopardy, but it puts  down a marker and it makes a very important point about ethical procurement and this particularly horrifying issue. I hope the comments that Ministers have made in this place, and in the other place, are used to emphasise the need for ethical process during procurement; this is perhaps the starkest example, but there are many others. It is with regret that it leaves your Lordships’ House without the noble Lord’s amendment, which we supported.
I thank the Minister for her comment on sensitive sites and Hikvision. It is somewhat intriguing because I suspect that the reason this has come up is because Hikvision is circulating material to its potential clients—and I imagine these are the non-sensitive clients—which seeks to use the Government’s language as an implicit endorsement of its continued operation in this country. I suspect that is why the Minister has stood up and made that comment. I hope that the Government can explain to Hikvision that this is an inappropriate use of their language, to try to sell its product in the face of a very particular problem, which has been highlighted, and one that is also a problem in non-sensitive sites across the country. I am interested to understand—either offline or online from the Minister—how they are taking this up with Hikvision.
This Bill has been on a journey since it started in your Lordships’ House. The next Bill is the exception, but rarely has a Bill received so many amendments. In the main, we have substantially improved the quality of this Bill through co-operation; through the hard work of the Minister, the Minister’s team and, of course, your Lordships. The normal character of these things is that we leave matters in a jovial and hearty way, but I am afraid I am not going to because I will return to an issue.
This is not in reference to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but the fact is this Procurement Bill was constructed to guide procurement across the whole country. It is supposed to be the way in which all procurement proceeds, with one exception: the largest single area of procurement in the country, the National Health Service. That would be allowable if there was a gold standard procurement process in place in the NHS. Quite clearly there is not. The Health and Care Act 2022 has not set out a gold standard procurement process, and there have been no processes that we can see which deliver that.
Since the last time we discussed this Bill—since the last time the Minister was standing at the Dispatch Box telling us that we do not need proper procurement processes for the National Health Service—there has been further evidence of huge abuses of procurement in the NHS. We do need this, and in the absence of an actual system that sits in the NHS, this system should apply. By not applying it the Government will preside over the waste of hundreds of millions of pounds that could have been spent on necessary services, due to very poor procurement practice. In that vein we are extremely disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to take the advice of your Lordships and include the NHS in this Bill.
We look forward to seeing how this Bill is applied across the country and, I hope, to seeing some benefit from its practices.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for continuing to press the issue of the terrible practice of organ harvesting and to raise awareness of it. I do not think that there was sufficient awareness of what was happening in China until my noble friend tabled his amendments, and I hope that he continues to work on this in the future. So we are also very disappointed that the Government chose not to accept his amendment, but we are where we are.
As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, ethical procurement has to be right at the centre of how we continue to do business. Hikvision was debated during the progress of the Bill and there is more work to do on some of these issues.
Having said that, I thank very much the Minister and her team for her comments today and for her constructive approach to improving the Bill, following a fairly sticky start in Committee. It has been a pleasure to work with a Minister, department and noble Lords across the House who genuinely wanted to make a better Bill. I know that there were an enormous number of government amendments—perhaps the Bill should have been better drafted in the first place—but they were very important. We are in a much better place than where we started, so I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who helped to bring us here.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: My Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for their insightful contributions in this brief debate—not least on the threat from China and on ethical procurement. It has been a pleasure to work with them all and to set the slightly troublesome record of tabling a very large amendments in this House.
I of course acknowledge the importance of tackling the abhorrent practice of organ harvesting, but this amendment is duplicative, unduly burdensome and not appropriately suited to its intended purpose, which is why the Bill has been returned to our House in this form. For these reasons, I do not think that the amendment is necessary and I reiterate the many commitments we have made in this House and in the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned the NHS. The Bill applies to NHS bodies and their procurement of goods and services, which are not classed as healthcare services under the provider selection regime. I am pleased to tell the noble Lord, as I hope he knows, that the underpinning regulations were laid by the Department of Health and Social Care on 19 October, which puts a line under that and ensures a consistent approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, remarked on the definition of sensitive sites. Both our Written Ministerial Statement from November last year, which was trailblazing to some extent, and the definition of sensitive sites that I set out only last month make our position on the issue clear to all concerned. We will be sharing annual reports on the removal of surveillance equipment, as I promised the House when we last debated this on 11 September.

Lord Fox: I thank the Minister for that comment, but that was not my point. It was actually that the language that the Government have used about non-sensitive sites is being used by Hikvision as a marketing tool to placate potential customers and say that it is okay. If the Minister has not seen that wording, I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will provide it; otherwise, I would be happy to. The Government need to reflect to Hikvision that they are not endorsing its technology for non-sensitive sites, which is what the company seeks to communicate.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe: I thank the noble Lord for his clarification. That is why I chose to reiterate what I have said. I will talk to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, tomorrow, but I reiterate that we are keeping an eye on this. The reports on the withdrawal of the surveillance equipment will be important. Public bodies outside government and some private bodies have already decided to withdraw these cameras, so I think the message is clear.
I thanked noble Lords across the House for their valuable contributions to the scrutiny of the Bill when it left for the other place on 13 December. I reiterate everything I said then. I add my thanks to our Whip, my noble friend Lord Mott, and my noble friends Lady Noakes, Lord Moylan, Lord Lansley and Lord Maude, who I did not mention last time. I much look forward to Royal Assent and the legacy that I believe will stem from the collective efforts of both Houses, which are all represented here this evening.
Motion A agreed.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
 - Commons Reason and Amendment

Welsh and Scottish Legislative Consent granted, Northern Ireland Legislative Consent sought.

Motion A

Earl Howe: Moved by Earl Howe
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 22B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 22C.
22C: Because local authorities should continue to meet in person to ensure good governance.

Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Motion A I shall also speak to Motion B. Your Lordships will remember that, during our consideration of Commons amendments on Monday this week, two amendments were carried by the House for further consideration by the other place. The first, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, was on virtual attendance at local authority meetings, and the second, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, related to consideration of climate change within the planning system. I will take each of these in turn.
Amendment 22B, tabled by my noble friend, has been decisively rejected by the other place. I well appreciate that this issue has elicited a range of differing views among your Lordships. However, I have to tell my noble friend, whom I greatly respect, that the Government’s position on the matter has not changed. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have not wavered from their clear, strong and principled view that preserving in-person debate is important for maintaining the integrity of local democracy. My noble friend’s amendment is quite clearly at odds with that position, as it provides the power to any future Government to potentially make regulations that go so far as allowing all local authorities to always meet remotely, without any limitations.
Local authorities need councillors to be physically present, to actively take part in democratic decision-making affecting the citizens they represent, and to interact with their fellow councillors at every opportunity to develop a sound understanding of local needs and priorities. That understanding is clearly vital for ensuring the strong local leadership that councils depend on to deliver for the electorate. Perhaps most importantly, councillors need to be physically present to interact with citizens in a way that builds meaningful relationships with their community and ensures that they are, in the fullest sense, accountable to their electorate.
The Government stand by their opposition to this amendment. The other place has agreed with that position. Therefore, again with great respect to my noble friend, I suggest that we have reached a point where it is right for us to draw a line under this issue. I hope that, on reflection, my noble friend will agree.
I now turn to the other outstanding issue, which is the way in which climate change is considered within the planning system. The Government continue to be committed to ensuring that the planning system supports our efforts in meeting our legal net-zero commitments by 2050 and tackling the risks of climate change. As I said earlier this week, we believe that there are already strong provisions within the Bill and other legislation that set the framework for this to happen. We have also committed to developing national policy in a way that is consistent with this.
But we have heard the strength of feeling that this commitment should be further enshrined in law. Therefore, the Government have gone a step further in tabling an amendment to require that, in preparing any national development management policies:
“The Secretary of State must have regard to the need to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change”.
As I have already made clear, we are fully supportive of the intentions of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, but we remain concerned that the amendment, as drafted, would give rise to significant challenge to how local councils fulfil their obligations to consider climate change within their planning functions. Notably, the combined effect of local authorities having to prove that their plans and decisions have “special regard” to climate change, while also proving that they are consistent with strategic national targets on carbon reduction, will at the very least create significant debate and deliberation on how to demonstrate this, but will very likely also give rise to litigation over the justifications presented.
The additional legislative provisions we have bought forward put climate change considerations at the centre of the development of new national development management policies, and in turn enable those considerations to influence all local planning decisions. I believe that this new provision takes us a lot closer to the position the noble Lord sought to arrive at with his amendment. I hope that both he and the House will be content to approve it. I beg to move.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for coming to the Dispatch Box in his charming and inimitable way to consider my humble little amendment once again. It is almost 20 years to the day since I joined a shadow team of which he was an eminent member; I hope that our co-operation will continue long into the future.
I think that any primary school pupil who has been watching our proceedings will be confused by our exhausting not just every letter of the alphabet except the letter O but additional letters of the alphabet. I am inclined to agree to disagree with the House of Commons’s disagreement with Amendment 22B, and will rehearse a couple of reasons why. The revised Amendment 22B was very modest in its remit. I accept my noble friend’s premise that local councils should primarily meet physically, but we went on to state that limited circumstances specified in regulations passed by the Government would permit a normally wholly physical meeting to be attended virtually. I am a little baffled and bewildered by the Government’s unwillingness to move a little more along these lines.
The reason I say this is that we experienced during Covid the situation whereby all council meetings were virtual to permit local government business to continue. That was deemed to work extremely well and kept the wheels of local government moving at a particularly challenging time. To move from completely virtual attendance during Covid to a situation where no virtual or remote attendance is allowed seems baffling. Also, I think it is fair to say that, if we in the Lords are permitted to serve on a committee and to meet either in hybrid form, which is what we are seeking in this amendment, or remotely, it seems incumbent on us to extend the same ability to local councils to meet in these circumstances.
I shall repeat the words of my honourable friend in the other place, the Minister, Rachel Maclean, who said in responding to an intervention from a Conservative Back-Bencher:
“He will know that, with this Bill, we are pushing power down to local people, local areas and local councillors, who are elected to represent their communities … the Government have a very clear view that local democracy should take place face to face”.
Where I agree with my honourable friend is when she went on to say:
“Through our levelling-up work, we are in the midst of a once-in-a-generation devolution of power to allow local areas, such as the one he represents, to make the best decisions for their local communities, notwithstanding this particular point, on which the Government have strong views”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/10/23; col. 787.]
There is a slight irony that the Government are devolving powers in this Bill to local authorities but not the power to decide to permit certain councillors to attend when they have certain difficulties.
We rehearsed at length what those circumstances might be, and I will repeat them briefly here. It seems to me a sensible, common-sense approach, for all the reasons my noble friend said, to permit local government to meet primarily physically and to permit virtual attendance in case of, for example, short-notice difficulties in obtaining childcare provision—which does happen and has led a number of councillors to leave local government—or because of the distance to travel and the lack of public transport, especially in the evening when councils normally meet, and on those occasions, which we have seen in the past two weeks, of inclement weather such as snowstorms, floods and high winds.
In the constituency where I was the MP for my last five years, one of the local councillors put to me that permitting virtual attendance to allow hybrid meetings in those circumstances would be a sensible way of working, it having worked so successfully. She said that because, at the time, Ryedale council covered a wide area. Take the example of Filey, in North Yorkshire, where to reach council meetings in Northallerton it is a 1.5 hour one-way journey and a total round-trip of between 60 and 80 miles. We are asking a lot of these councillors to achieve physical presence on every single occasion.
I acknowledge almost universal support—90% to 95% of councillors—for the amendment in lieu, Amendment 22B, which we debated previously. I realise that this is late in the day on this occasion, but I promise my noble friend that I will revert to this; if there is any possibility in any of the legislation in the King’s Speech, I will latch on to it. I give him early warning of that.
I thank all in the House who supported the amendment in its original and revised forms, and my colleagues in the other place, including my honourable friend Peter Aldous, my right honourable friend Theresa Villiers, and others who spoke in support of this. That this humble, modest amendment is the thin end of the wedge, where all meetings would go from being totally physical to totally virtual, is a little of an exaggeration. While not wanting to test the patience of the House further by pressing this to a vote, I express a little disappointment and sadness that the Government have not seen fit to move on this occasion.

Lord Ravensdale: My Lords, I shall speak to Motion B. I declare my interests as set out in the register. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, the noble Lords, Lord Lansley, Lord Teverson and Lord Hunt, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, all of whom supported the amendment at earlier stages.
I particularly thank the Minister for coming back with the government amendment. Although it does not give us everything that we asked for, it constitutes great progress in this area. It ensures that climate mitigation and adaptation will be considered in the national development management policies, and, looking at the wider context of plans in the Bill, will ensure that it is included and will then be a compulsory part  of decision-making. Therefore, it goes some way towards giving us what we were after, and I am grateful to the Minister for coming back with that substantive amendment.
I have one small point. In the absence of a definition of climate change mitigation and adaptation in the amendment, perhaps the Minister might consider including the targets, with reference to the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act, in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill.
I welcome the comments made by the Minister in the other place that the Government intend to do a fuller review of the NPPF, to ensure that it contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation as fully as possible, following Royal Assent. I hope the Government seize the opportunity here to strengthen chapter 14 of the NPPF to specify that, in determining planning applications, decision-makers must take account of climate change mitigation and adaptation.
The government amendment embedding climate and the environment in planning decision-making will have a great effect on getting clean infrastructure and sustainable homes built right across the country. Importantly, it will also do much to empower local authorities and regions to play their part in the net-zero transition, which they all want to do. We still see a need for further legislative work in this area—particularly on a move towards a statutory duty, as we propose—but, again, I am grateful for the progress that has been made.
Lastly, I thank all noble Lords who voted for my amendment and helped to get it over the line in a very close vote on Monday.

Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I shall comment on each of the amendments. First, I commiserate with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I do so as a past president of the National Association of Local Councils, the parent of parish and town councils in this country, which would dearly have loved to have had the facility to vary the way in which it deals with meetings. I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to acquiesce to any of this. The Minister suggested that the measure went too far and that it would open the floodgates to local government holding virtual meetings as a matter of course. Were that his fear, the Government’s fear or that of the other place, it seems to me that it would have been perfectly possible to come back with a proviso that the Secretary of State would make regulation.
One matter that has never been explained to my satisfaction is the juxtaposition—the fact that, by definition, accountability is somehow measured by physical presence. I do not get that, and I do not think there will be many Members of this House present today who will get it. This issue will come back through sheer force of practicality and necessity. We have to move into the modern age, in that sense. I will leave my comments on that there.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on his success in getting what I can only describe as the obvious provision into this Bill, namely that we have to take climate change seriously and that it underpins everything that we do. To that extent, it was inevitable—if not in this Bill then in very short order—that something would have to be included somewhere in primary  legislation, but I congratulate him on his persistence in getting this far. Even if it is not the whole bun, it is certainly more than a currant in the bun and he is to be congratulated.
In that context, there are other things in the Bill that have been left on the cutting- room floor. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is not here at the moment. His amendment on healthy homes is about something that is inevitably going to come back. It is not going to disappear; this is going to have to be the benchmark whereby society expects homes to be created.
The series of amendments which I have been trying to get through unsuccessfully was to do with building safety remediation. The fact is that so many leasehold homes are unprotected yet are faced with remediation costs and liabilities, without which they will not get insurance at any sensible cost. These homes are not excluded from the necessity of remediation by virtue of their height, whether it be 11 metres and below or above 11 metres, because the Building Safety Act 2022 says that it will cover all these other buildings.
It is simply not correct that somehow these homes escape the inevitable consequences of that. That is going to come home to roost because there is an entire market sector—an entire financial sector—that is dependent upon that being resolved. If it is not resolved now in this Bill, as it clearly will not be, then it will come back in short order because this is a matter of an existential threat to leasehold tenure, or indeed whatever tenure there might be instead of leasehold. If you have a building in multiple occupation, where different parts are apartments, this problem is going to come home to roost so long as there are defects caused in the original construction and the constructor and developer are able to walk away from that liability.
In congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on getting his motherhood and apple pie amendment passed, let me remind your Lordships that other bits that have been left behind are also going to come back and haunt us as things go forward.

Duke of Montrose: With the leave of your Lordships, I will touch on another small point. In Monday’s Hansard, the heading for this Bill said that legislative consent had been obtained from the Welsh Government but that the Government were still looking for legislative consent from the Scottish Government. In fact, a Scottish Government paper relating all the trials and tribulations that my noble friend had been through—it had 26 pages—was still operating. Are we still looking for more consent from that direction?

Baroness Pinnock: My Lords, this Bill has been improved by the assiduous work of this House over the last 10 months. Some significant and welcome changes have been made during that process.
I turn first to the two Motions left on the Order Paper. I regret that the Commons has failed to perceive the benefit of enabling some meetings of councils to be in a hybrid form. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I feel sure that this issue will resurface as the Government move towards the creation of even larger units of local government, which will put additional pressure on those elected to attend meetings in person.
I welcome the progress that has been made in the amendments so determinedly pursued by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on making sure that climate change is at the heart of the planning process. If I have understood correctly, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has committed that climate change adaptation and mitigation will be included in national planning policy guidance. But we would like to see it included in what is at the moment a blank sheet of paper: the national development management plans. It would be even better if that were the case. That would make a very clear statement that climate change has to be part of any planning decision-making.
Having said that there has been progress, I acknowledge that there are many other unresolved challenges. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has raised the importance of support for leaseholders and further amendments to the Building Safety Act 2022. These included what my noble friend Lord Stunell pursued about regulations within that Act. There is also an unresolved challenge in creating inclusive transparent devolution settlements for county councils and in providing any evidence and energy to effect the agenda that begins the process of levelling up those parts of our countries that are in desperate need of government help.
Yesterday, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report that provided evidence to support the fact that 1 million children in our country are living in destitution—not poverty but destitution. On the day before that, this House decided against making tackling child poverty a key mission of levelling up. I hope the House learns to regret that decision. On these Benches, we will continue to make the case for dealing with the inequalities that scar our country.
I thank all who have taken part in proceedings and those who have provided the essential support in different parts of this Chamber and in the office supporting the Liberal Democrat Benches. Finally, I genuinely look forward to seeing evidence of levelling up in practice where it is needed most. Sadly, at the moment, I cannot say that I am particularly optimistic on that score.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, significant changes have been made to improve the Bill while we have worked on it over the past 10 months—although I have to say that it is beginning to feel like a lifetime.
However, we are mainly looking at the two amendments in front of us—first, on whether local authorities should be allowed to meet virtually with hybrid technology. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on her assiduous work in pressing this issue and continuing to bring it to the attention of your Lordships’ House. We find the Government’s response deeply disappointing. In many ways, I would like better to understand why they have dug their heels in on this issue, because I genuinely do not understand why there could not be a little flexibility. Local councillors can see that, in your Lordships’ House, we are able to take advantage of hybrid technology, so why is this refused to councillors? It could have been put in legislation with fairly strict reasons for its use, so that is disappointing. I genuinely do not understand why no progress whatever was made on this.
Moving on to progress, we welcome the amendment in lieu of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on climate change and planning. I congratulate him on his work on this and on getting the Government to recognise that this is an important issue that needed an amendment to the Bill. We endorse the noble Lord’s proposals on how we can continue to take this forward.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, it is disappointing that, in a levelling-up Bill, neither child poverty nor health inequalities were included, because they are central to levelling up. On that, it is disappointing that the Prime Minister has chosen to remove the cap on bankers’ bonuses.
I thank everyone who took part and the noble Earl for his generosity in meeting to discuss these issues. We may be saying goodbye to the levelling-up Bill, but there is still much to do if we are to achieve levelling up in this country.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Hayman of Ullock, for their respective remarks.
As I said earlier, I appreciate that my noble friend and other noble Lords beg to differ from the Government’s position on remote meetings of local authorities. However, the Government’s position rests on an issue of principle that has served local government well for over 50 years. The Local Government Act 1972 is clear that “attending” a council meeting means attending physically in order to be “present” at such a meeting. I appreciate that the Covid regulations saw us through some difficult and exceptional circumstances, but the democratic principle of face-to-face attendance of meetings at all tiers of government is important. There is a long tradition of local authorities meeting in person and, since the expiration of the temporary arrangements put in place during the Covid-19 pandemic, they have continued to do so without issue. Having said that, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving us fair warning that she expects to bring us back to these issues at a suitable point in the future.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for welcoming the government amendment. I suggest to noble Lords that we should not underplay the effect of the Government’s amendment in lieu, which will mean that all national development management policies will give consideration to their impacts on climate change mitigation and adaptation while they are being developed and designated. I will take back for consideration the noble Lord’s suggestion about including targets in the Explanatory Notes.
Finally, in response to my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, I can tell the House that the Scottish Parliament granted legislative consent for relevant parts of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill yesterday, following the agreement with the Scottish Government that was mentioned in the House previously.
Motion A agreed.

Motion B

Earl Howe: Moved by Earl Howe
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 45 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 45C in lieu.
45C: Clause 87, page 95, line 11, at end insert— “(2A) The Secretary of State must have regard to the need to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change— (a) in preparing a policy which is to be designated as a national development management policy, or (b) in modifying a national development management policy.”
Motion B agreed.

War in Ukraine
 - Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Tuesday 24 October.
“Since I last updated the House in my opening remarks in the debate on Ukraine on 11 September, the situation on the ground has remained largely unchanged. Slow and steady progress is being made by the Ukrainian armed forces, which continue to grind their way through the main Russian defensive position. Defence Intelligence estimates that the number of Russian permanent casualties—in other words, those who are dead or so seriously wounded that they cannot return to action—now stands at between 150,000 and 190,000 troops. Total casualties are estimated to number up to 290,000.
A limited Russian offensive is under way at Avdiivka on the outskirts of Donetsk city. Fighting has been fierce, and we assess that the average casualty rate for the Russian army was around 800 per day in the first week of the offensive. As ever, Putin and his generals show no more regard for the lives of their own troops than they do for the people of Ukraine.
However, even this ex-soldier can admit that wars are not only about the fight on the land. Since the last debate on Ukraine, the Ukrainians have opened up a new front in the Black Sea, destroying a Kilo-class submarine and two amphibious ships, as well as making a successful strike on the Russian Black Sea fleet headquarters. The consequence, as President Zelensky has rightly said, is that the Russian Black Sea fleet is no longer capable of resistance in the western Black Sea. As we move beyond day 600—it is day 608, to be precise—of Putin’s ‘three-day’ illegal war, he has still not achieved any of his initial strategic aims, and he has now ceded sea control in the western Black Sea to a nation without a navy.
The UK continues to donate significant amounts of ammunition and matériel, paid for from the £2.3 billion commitment for this financial year. That follows the same amount being given the year before, and that is an important point. Our gifting is about more than headline-making capabilities such as Challenger 2 or Storm Shadow. It is the delivery, month after month, of tens of thousands of artillery rounds, air defence missiles and other small but necessary items of equipment that positions the UK as one of the biggest and most influential of Ukraine’s donors. The UK is also the only country to have trained soldiers, sailors, aviators and marines in support of the Ukrainian effort; we have now trained over 50,000 soldiers, sailors, aviators and marines since 2014.
Events in the Middle East have dominated the headlines, but in the Ministry of Defence and across the UK Government—and, clearly, in His Majesty’s Opposition, as they brought forward this Urgent Question—Ukraine remains a focus. I think that seeing this very timely Question will matter enormously to our friends and colleagues in Kyiv. I remain every bit as confident today as I have been on all my previous visits to the Dispatch Box over the last two years that Ukraine can and will prevail.”

Lord Coaker: My Lords, obviously our attention is focused elsewhere at present for understandable reasons, given the current horrors in the Middle East, but can the Minister update us on the Ministry of Defence’s current analysis of the situation in Ukraine? As we know, war still rages there. Cities are still being bombed. People are being killed and maimed, with claims and counterclaims being made. In particular, can the Minister update us on the supply of winter support that Ukraine has asked for as a matter of urgency, and whether it is correct that our stockpiles are still dangerously low and that we are having trouble sourcing weapons to purchase on the international market?
Hamas must be defeated, and so must President Putin. As we enter this period of sometimes being here and sometimes not, I want to say to the Minister, once again, that President Putin expected us and others to be disunited. In the face of the illegal war, we remain united in our determination to see this to a victorious end.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Baroness Goldie: The sentiment and reaction of the Chamber will reaffirm to the noble Lord how much his expressions of support are appreciated. It is important not just for this Chamber and Parliament as a whole but for the message it sends to the wider world, not least to Mr Putin.
I assure the noble Lord that there is evidence that the counteroffensive is having a very significant impact. It inflicts chronic pressure on Russia deep beyond the front lines. We know that the Russian defence industry is severely stretched and unable to access western components to produce sufficient equipment. Russia now desperately searches for foreign armaments and has had to resort to mobilising Soviet-era tanks.
If we in the United Kingdom are united in our resolve to maintain our support for Ukraine and to continue doing everything we can, whether individually or in concert with friends and allies to deliver that support, it is worth noting that in Ukraine itself there is no war fatigue. Polling in Ukraine shows huge positivity about its future, which is to be commended. Once again, the courage of the people in Ukraine is admirable and deserving of our respect and commendation.
On the matter of replenishment, as the noble Lord will be aware, the Government are engaged on their own replenishment mission with industry. The UK’s position is not unique in NATO with regard to industrial capacity and stockpile replenishment. The UK is driving thinking on solutions to this issue. We will continue to  work with international partners and deepen engagement with industry through meetings with the NATO armaments director, the Ukraine Defense Contact Group and the NATO Industry Advisory Group.

Baroness Smith of Newnham: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out, eyes are all turned towards Israel and Gaza at the moment. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made about the impact that that is having on President Putin and whether he is taking an opportunity to engage further in Ukraine while we look to Israel and Gaza? Beyond that, the House was told last night by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, that there has been a British deployment of support to the eastern Mediterranean of two Royal Naval ships, RAF surveillance aircraft and a company of Royal Marines—and we have bolstered forces in Cyprus and across the region. All that is in many ways welcome, but can the Minister explain what assessment is being made in the MoD about our own resilience to make sure that we can continue to support the training of troops in Ukraine as well as in the eastern Mediterranean, because both those fronts are vital?

Baroness Goldie: The noble Baroness is absolutely right to indicate that there is nothing that Mr Putin would like better than to imagine that everybody is distracted by another dangerous conflict and that somehow or other he is off the radar screen. For the United Kingdom and our allies, the tragic situation with Israel and the Gaza Strip and the situation in Ukraine continue to be deeply worrying conflicts. We will do our level best, as we have indicated, to provide support where we can. The noble Baroness designated the support that we have indicated we can make available in the eastern Mediterranean. I can confirm to her that that is not impugning our resilience on other fronts. As she will understand, the support that we are offering to Ukraine is somewhat different in character, but we are able and absolutely committed to continue doing that. I hope that there will be opportunities to update the House in forthcoming months as to exactly how that support will continue.

Baroness Fall: My Lords, we witnessed Putin in China last weekend, a guest of honour at the Chinese celebrations to mark the 10th anniversary of the belt and road initiative. He noted that they had common threads bringing together Russia and China and, as we know, China has offered economic and diplomatic support to Russia the whole way through. Neither state has condemned the atrocities that we have seen by Hamas on Israel. Are we witnessing a growing coalition of authoritarian states, including Iran and North Korea? What is His Majesty’s Government’s response, especially with regard to the future of Ukraine?

Baroness Goldie: As my noble friend will be aware, the combination of the two integrated reviews, not least the integrated review refresh of this year, demonstrated His Majesty’s Government’s analysis of what we consider the challenge position to be globally. That reaffirmed that our primary objective is Euro-Atlantic security but of course Euro-Atlantic security  is, frankly, indivisible from Indo-Pacific security. Therefore, we are active on all fronts to use all the measures available to us to support friends and allies who believe in the same values that we believe in. That includes calling out activity that we find unacceptable. For example, we have called out China’s activity in the South China seas and called out the deeply concerning situation in Xinjiang with regard to the treatment of Uighurs. In the United Nations, we regularly call out the activities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
I reassure my noble friend that, across a whole range of fronts, we are very clear about what we need to do to stand up for rights, values and democratic freedoms. Encouragingly, we do not do that alone—we do it in concert with very important friends and allies.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, UK defence spending needs long-term clarity. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the cost of current levels of support for Ukraine over the next two years and its impact on provision for UK defence over a similar period?

Baroness Goldie: I have been able to indicate to the Chamber, and reiterate it to the noble and gallant Lord, that we are satisfied that we have the resource not only to attend to our indigenous domestic security and defence needs but to continue affording the help that we have been affording to Ukraine, for example. The noble and gallant Lord will be aware of figures that have been settled for last year and this year in respect of that aid. I do not want to pre-empt the Autumn Statement—it would be quite wrong to do that—but I reassure him that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the past Secretary of State for Defence and the current Secretary of State for Defence are absolutely aligned on wanting to continue our support of Ukraine.

Lord Berkeley of Knighton: My Lords, there has obviously been great emphasis on support for Ukraine in terms of arms, but is the Minister aware— I am sure she is—that one of the things it most badly needs is medical supplies? This, of course, can save a lot of lives; indeed, probably on both sides. It is something that I feel the Government could manage rather more easily than many of the other demands that are made of them.

Baroness Goldie: It is an important area, and we have been able to provide significant help with medical support. That has included supply of equipment and goods that are assisting Ukraine in defence of its country. We are also, within the UK, helping to treat some wounded members of the Ukrainian armed forces. We have expert medical facilities available within the MoD medical services and there are other ways that we are investigating, along with allies, how we can continue to provide that essential area of support.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, following on the humanitarian theme, the Minister may be aware of a documentary airing on ITV this  week, “Ukraine’s Stolen Children”, about the very large number of children that have been kidnapped, deceived and dragged into Russia and not returned except after the most difficult struggle. Can the noble Baroness assure me that the British Government are doing everything they can to help the families who are trying to recover their children and to document what is happening for potential future prosecutions—in essence, doing everything they can to assist families in this terrible situation?

Baroness Goldie: The noble Baroness raises a very important issue that will strike at the cords of the hearts of us all. I can reassure her that the United Kingdom Government have been assisting the International Criminal Court with resource, advice and support. We have also been assisting Ukraine with its internal domestic legal system. She is quite correct: what has been happening in respect of these children is utterly appalling and repugnant. We will do anything we can within the limited scope we have—limited because those children are now in some other state’s jurisdiction. She is right, it is appalling, and we will continue to do whatever we can to help Ukraine resolve these matters.

Storm Babet: Flooding
 - Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 23 October.
“Storm Babet has affected a number of communities across the UK, with the worst impacts being seen in Scotland and the very sad loss of life in Scotland and England. I know only too well the devasting impacts that flooding can have on individuals and communities. My thoughts and sympathies are with all those affected, and in particular with the friends and families of those who have tragically lost their lives in recent days. I thank emergency responders, local authorities, volunteers and the Environment Agency for their tireless efforts to help communities across the country.
Storm Babet brought persistent and heavy rain to the north and Midlands of England overnight on Thursday 19 October, and through Friday and Saturday. Met Office amber and yellow warnings for rain and a yellow warning for wind were in place across large parts of England. The range was so broad due to the storm being easterly—atypical in the UK—and eastern and south-eastern facing slopes took the brunt of the rainfall. This was further complicated by a band of high pressure over Scandinavia, which trapped rainfall over the north of England and Scotland.
As the Secretary of State set out in the House last week, an emergency response centre was set up. In advance of the storm, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Cabinet Office convened the national flood response centre to co-ordinate the response. Cross-government meetings have taken place daily since last Wednesday, and they will continue to do so this week.
Meeting in advance of the storm enabled the Environment Agency and local responders to increase the readiness of flood defences and the clearing of potential blockages, such as sluice gates and drains.  Equipment was transferred from different parts of the country to areas that had been forecast to be most badly affected. Over the weekend, severe flood warnings were issued for parts of the River Derwent in Derbyshire and the River Idle in Nottinghamshire. The worst areas impacted by the storm were in Suffolk, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire, where major incidents were declared.
Yesterday, I visited Bewdley on the River Severn, where I saw at first hand how intense bursts of local rainfall had led to the Severn’s tributaries putting more water into the main channel, leading to an exceptional 1-metre rise in just two hours on Friday. When the water receded a few hours later, the EA was able to complete erecting the demountable barriers to ensure that potentially floodable properties were not flooded at these incredible peak levels. At its peak more than 300 flood warnings were issued by the Environment Agency, and several severe flood warnings. The Environment Agency flood line service experienced its busiest day since 2015-16, with more than 1,800 calls.
As of this morning, we are aware of 1,258 properties that have flooded. There was also wider disruption to road and rail networks, as well as flooding on agricultural land that will have impacted crops. The Environment Agency agreed to requests for early abstraction for some farmers, so that they could take water out of the system to store in their on-farm reservoirs. I add my thanks to those farming communities, particularly in Suffolk, that responded so quickly to the needs of their local communities.
On the impact in Scotland and Wales, the House will know that this is a devolved matter. Although the storm has now passed, over the course of the week, rainfall will continue to flow into river networks, and the overall flood risk for England and Wales is currently medium. Significant river flooding impacts remain probable in parts of South Yorkshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire as well as more widely. Further rainfall is expected later this week but not on the same scale, and it is not expected to lead to further significant flooding. Two major incidents remain in place in South Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, and both are moving from response to recovery.
I take my role as the Flooding Minister extremely seriously, and I am aware of the devasting impact that flooding can have on local communities. Local flood authorities will decide whether to initiate Section 19 inquiries. I know that will happen in Horncastle and is being considered in other areas. The Secretary of State visited sites in Nottinghamshire today. Before she left, she met the chief executive of the Environment Agency on Saturday, and she met me again this morning. My teams and I have been in constant communication throughout this event with the Environment Agency and all concerned, and particularly with all Members of Parliament from affected areas. Although, unfortunately, some properties have been flooded, we estimate that approximately 42,000 homes in England have been protected that otherwise might have been flooded during this incident. That includes towns such as Matlock, where the recently completed flood defence—basically a big wall—in the centre of the town on the River Derwent held up well and protected the town. Its Member of Parliament, my honourable friend the  Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), got in touch with me to share pictures to show how that defence was working, and it had only just been completed.
The Environment Agency considers that its assets and response have largely been effective. We should also consider more widely those areas that have been protected due to flood defences that have been installed within the last decade. We invested £2.6 billion in flood defences between 2015 and 2021, which has better protected 314,000 homes all over England. We are currently deploying more flood schemes between 2021 and 2027, with a record £5.2 billion of investment. That includes both hard defences and natural flood defences. It includes areas such as Hull, for example, where a £42 million scheme was opened in 2022, which I visited. It is in the constituency of the shadow Minister, the honourable Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy).
However, we know of some areas where the assets were overwhelmed, not having been designed for such rare, extreme levels of rainfall. We will of course be reviewing our response once the risk of flooding has passed. That will consider flood warning triggers and local mobilisation of assets. We should bear in mind that local resilience forums are the principal authorities for deciding and co-ordinating responses, working off established protocols and existing flood risk management plans.
Some of this flooding was due to surface water flooding, which is the primary responsibility of local authorities. However, we work with local authorities, and a third of our current funding is linked to projects for tackling surface water flooding across the country. The Government are also working to improve the local and national response to flooding, including improving surface water flood forecasting. We are investing £1 million in that, and through an Environment Agency, Met Office and Flood Forecasting Centre project, we hope to come up with some valuable suggestions and actions.
Finally, as local authorities move to the recovery phase, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is already in contact with affected councils to assess impacts as these communities look to recover.”

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, first, as the Statement does, I offer our thoughts and deepest sympathies to all those affected by the devastating floods, with hundreds of people left homeless and, tragically, some losing their lives. I also thank our emergency services, local councils and the Environment Agency for their efforts to keep people safe.
Unfortunately, events such as Storm Babet that bring terrible floods are not just unexpected any more but are increasing in frequency and severity as we see the effects of climate change. Yet, although extreme rainfall and flooding is becoming more common, climate scientists have warned that the UK is unprepared to deal with this type of weather. One example is Dr Jess Neumann, a flooding expert at the University of Reading, who has said that the UK should not be thinking about events such as Storm Babet as “a one-off freak event”, saying:
“Flooding is the greatest natural hazard that faces the UK.”
Dr Neumann also stated that we are still building too many homes on flood plains and that the Government must support people to make their homes more prepared for flooding.
The Committee on Climate Change has estimated that 1.8 million people are living in areas of the UK that are at significant risk of flooding. This figure is projected to increase to 2.6 million by the 2050s if global temperatures rise by 2 degrees, which is, worryingly, very possible. Does the Minister agree that the Government need to take our climate change goals more seriously so that our country is better prepared for such events in future?
When this Statement was debated in the other place, concerns were raised that the National Infrastructure Commission had stated that
“there is no measurable long term national target to reduce flood risk … and the current target does not factor in risk increasing due to climate change”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/10/23; col. 617.]
I ask the Minister to explain why this is the case, and whether the Government are going to review this clearly deeply unsatisfactory situation?
We have just finished the levelling-up Bill and during the debates concerns were raised about the number of properties in the UK that are in danger of flooding, and that this is not sufficiently taken account of when it comes to planning and development. In fact, your Lordships’ House felt strongly enough on this issue to send an amendment to the Commons, which the Government chose to reject. According to the Environment Agency, more than half of local planning authorities rarely surveyed or never inspected new developments to check that flood-risk planning conditions had been carried out. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, discussed this during the debates and mentioned research that demonstrated that almost one-third of homes built in the five most flood-prone areas were approved without a flood assessment. So I ask the Minister to explain why this is happening and what can be done to improve mapping of flood-prone areas to better understand the challenges and the areas that are most at risk? We need to end the practice of just reacting to a disaster as it is happening.
The Statement refers to the emergency response centre that was set up to manage the flood risk this time around. Does the Minister not agree that there is an urgent need to plan for the long term? A Labour Government would establish a COBRA-style flood-preparedness task force every winter, to protect communities from the dangers of flooding ahead of serious events. This would co-ordinate central government, local authorities and emergency services each winter, to minimise the risk ahead of time.
Unfortunately, it is extremely likely that we are going to see more violent storms and increased flooding over the coming years. The Government have to get a grip on this issue and do all they can to support communities and put in long-term plans to decrease and manage the risk. We need government to take responsibility for managing the increasing impacts of climate change and flooding. Unfortunately, it seems that the Government have been rolling back from their climate-change pledges. So I ask the Minister whether  he supports this direction of travel because, unless the Government change their approach, the devastating impact of storms is only set to get worse?

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville: My Lords, first, I send my condolences to the families who suffered bereavement as a result of the storm. I also commiserate with those who were flooded, losing possessions and experiencing considerable heart-breaking inconvenience. I thank all the services who went more than the extra mile to help those affected by the rising flood waters: the Environment Agency, local authorities, the fire service, the police and ambulance services, the RNLI and the coastguard services. All were involved to some extent in rescuing people and ensuring they were safe and that flood waters were dealt with quickly and efficiently.
We cannot control directly the level of rainfall, but we can be prepared for when it is likely to occur. Our advance-weather warning systems are extremely sophisticated and of tremendous benefit in helping to prepare for the worst. Can the Minister reassure the House that the early-warning systems are working and efficient, and that those properties at risk of flooding get the necessary advance warning needed for them to prepare for the approaching storms and rising river levels?
Farmers are severely disadvantaged by storms and flooding, but at least with advance warning they are able to gather in their stock and keep it safe. We no longer see low-lying fields littered with the carcasses of drowned sheep when the waters recede, which has happened in the past. However, arable farmers are not able to save their crops, and those operating on the levels and other flood plains have their livelihoods devastated by rising flood waters and are powerless to do anything about it. They deserve all the help they can get. I ask the Minister, who I know will have these farmers in his thoughts, whether the Government are able to offer them any form of compensation for their loss of vital crops?
Since 2015-16, considerable sums of money have been spent on specific hotspots of flooding. However, some of these flood defences were overrun. Some 300 flood warnings were issued by the Environment Agency and 1,258 properties were flooded. There have been reports that some flood defences were poorly maintained, causing them to be overrun. Can the Minister say how many of the flooded properties were in areas where flood defences have been strengthened since 2015-16?
The Statement tells us that in the period 2015 to 2021, £2.6 billion was spent on flood defences, securing 314,000 homes across England. This is an average of £8,250 per property protected. This is less than the cost of clearing up a property after a flood. In Derbyshire, £74 million of flood defence schemes were constructed, protecting 3,900 properties. These defences were strong and properties were protected. The Minister for Flooding indicated that the Government had increased the flooding budget for 2021 to 2027 to £5.2 billion. I assume that this is an extra £2.6 billion on top of the previous figure and not an extra £5.2 billion, which would make £7.9 billion. Can the Minister please confirm this?
I welcome that natural flood management is to receive some of this money. Natural flood management schemes of retention ponds, monitoring watercourse flows and trapping and capturing water, alongside grey water harvesting, are extremely effective and cheaper than hard defences and should be promoted and encouraged wherever possible. Preventing storm waters from reaching our towns, villages and cities is an essential part of assisting residents to help themselves to prepare for these once-in-100-year occurrences that seem to happen with increasing regularity.
I turn now to coastal erosion, which is a problem in certain areas of the country. In the West Country, it is an irregular occurrence for the sandstone cliffs to collapse on to the beach below and then into the sea. Mostly, this happens safely, but very occasionally there are casualties. I welcome the £200 million announced for flood and coastal resilience. Can the Minister say whether this is part of the £5.2 billion or in addition to it?
We have in the past debated the role of Flood Re in assisting those who live on flood plains and cannot get insurance cover. This scheme was started to assist domestic homes only. Over the years there have been calls for it to be expanded to cover businesses operating in areas of flood risk. Can the Minister give an update on the Government’s thinking on whether businesses are likely to be covered by Flood Re in the future? I am aware of the Government’s scheme Build Back Better to provide an extra £10,000 for householders flooded to improve their flood resilience. This is to be welcomed. Is the Minister able to say how successful this scheme has been and how many householders have been assisted under the scheme?
Local authorities are key to both flood prevention and resilience schemes and to assessing flood risk in the first place. Their planning departments collaborate with developers to attempt to ensure that flood resilience planning conditions are adhered to, but a lack of financial resources often means that they are stretched to monitor all such developments. Where flood risk is high, it is important for the Government and local authorities to encourage residents to join flood forums and work together to find solutions to mitigate the problems before they occur.
Lastly, I want to mention those agencies working around our coastlines to rescue people under appalling conditions. The RNLI goes out in all weathers to rescue those who are in difficulties at sea, and the havoc caused by Storm Babet was no exception. There will be many who owe their lives to the RNLI, which is a charity that receives no government funding.
I am aware that the Shetland coastguard helicopter airlifted 45 workers from the Stena Spey offshore drilling rig during the storms, and that the Department for Transport is proposing to alter the coastguard helicopter’s response time from 15 minutes to 60 minutes. This seems neither sensible nor safe. An hour is a long time in battling ferocious seas and weather. Would the Minister be prepared to ask his colleagues in DfT to reconsider this response time before lives are put at unnecessary risk?
We can help with flooding problems by addressing climate change, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, laid out clearly. This aspect should not be ignored; it should be moved up the agenda.

Lord Benyon: My Lords, the Government acknowledge the terrible impact the storm has had on householders and businesses, and sympathise with those affected, particularly the friends and families of those who have so tragically lost their lives in recent days. I thank the noble Baronesses for raising the tragic circumstances of this storm.
I, too, thank the emergency responders, local authorities, volunteers, Defra and the Environment Agency for their tireless efforts to help communities across the country. So far, 1,375 properties have flooded during Storm Babet, and more than 62,000 properties have been protected by existing flood defences. More than 900 Environment Agency staff have been working tirelessly to protect communities, with 451 people on the ground and 473 in incident rooms across the country.
The areas impacted worst by the storm were in Suffolk, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and south Yorkshire, where major incidents were declared. There was also disruption to road and rail networks. The UK’s topography has evolved towards predominantly westerly weather patterns but, in this case, the direction of the weather meant that east-facing and south-east-facing slopes took the brunt of the rainfall. This was further complicated by a band of high pressure over Scandinavia that trapped rainfall over the north of England and Scotland.
The Flood Forecasting Centre notified the department of the approaching storm on Monday 16 October. A cross-government meeting was held last Wednesday to inform preparedness action. Defra also activated its emergency operation centre to co-ordinate the national response, bringing the United Kingdom Government together with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. This action enabled the Environment Agency and local responders to increase the readiness of flood defences and the clearing of potential blockages. Equipment was transferred from different parts of the country to areas that were forecast to be affected worst; however, we know of some areas where assets were overwhelmed, having not been designed for such rare, extreme levels of rainfall. As the Secretary of State for the Environment noted in her evidence to the EFRA Select Committee yesterday, we will do a rapid review of our response—as we do on all such occasions—working with the Met Office to identify any learning.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for raising the issue of farmers. I thank them and land managers whose land is used to protect communities from the devastation of flooding and coastal erosion. They have an increasingly important role to play in reducing the risk of flooding and coastal erosion as we adapt to climate change through measures such as natural flood management.
As we move into the recovery phase, the Prime Minister announced today a significant package of support that will be available to areas in England that have experienced exceptional localised flooding. The support will be made available through a scheme known as the flood recovery framework, which is used in exceptional circumstances to support councils and communities following severe flooding.
Turning to the issues raised, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that the frequency and prevalence of these incidents will be a regular feature of our lives. We are rightly planning for that and trying to adapt our infrastructure to support communities. Dr Neumann is right, which is why we are helping households across the country by incentivising them to protect their homes, as well as protecting them through different types of flood measures. Some of those measures are hard—concrete and steel—and some are nature-based solutions, which we are learning much more about and which can have a huge, much more cost-effective impact on protecting people.
There is absolutely a plan for increasing the amount of spend on our infrastructure and making sure that we are protecting as many homes as possible. We have a clear plan for that. Many properties that were in danger of flooding have been taken out of danger by the investment that has been spent and by a greater understanding of data. Many years ago, as the Minister responsible for floods, I visited Bristol and saw that it had a system with millions of data points around the city. It could put all sorts of different weather events on to that software and predict, right down to household level, the risks that may be faced. Sometimes it is just about raising a kerb or building a wall, and sometimes it is about a much bigger system. That is what we have done in response to the Pitt review following the devastating floods of 2007.
With our national flood response centre, we have the best system of dealing with this. It is an evolving system and, whether you call it COBRA-style or whatever, it works and reflects the finding of the Pitt review that we needed much more emphasis on local resilience. That is what this delivers, but it draws it together on a national level, working with our devolved partners. The game-changer on this has been partnership funding, which has seen many more flood protections delivered. It is a measure that I introduced—with opposition at the time from the Labour Party, which called it a flood tax. I predicted then that the Labour Party, if it ever got into government, would not change partnership funding. I do not know whether that will ever happen, but partnership funding is a way to deliver a massive increase in protection of homes.
What we are facing is a result of a changing climate, and our climate change mitigation measures are vital. Our adaptation is vital. The Climate Change Committee is right, and I am proud that we are a leading country in decarbonising our economy and playing our part internationally by assisting other countries in decarbonising their economies.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about our early warning system. We have tested this. We had the largest civil contingency exercise ever, a tier 1 contingency exercise, Watermark. That was followed last year by Floodex 2022, which was exercised around the Trent, one of the rivers that was affected this year. Our system of warning people has improved. It is not perfect—nothing ever is in these circumstances—but our flood defences are maintained at a point where 94% of them are at target condition. We want to see that increased to 98%. I would like it to be 100%, but 98% is a realistic target.
We have doubled spending. It was, as the noble Baroness said, £2.6 billion; it is now £5.2 billion. That is a flood and coastal erosion budget. I entirely accept what she says about flood forums. I have seen them in action. They involve local people in a way that we never saw before 2007. They were a product of a number of changes that were made. They have involved communities at a very local level and seen real benefit and change. I too pay tribute to the RNLI. One lifeboat in Scotland was at sea for 18 hours saving people from a trawler in the teeth of the storm. The courage of the RNLI is second to none. I am not aware of the helicopter issue but will certainly discuss it with my colleague in that department.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing forward this Statement. My thoughts are with the victims—those who died and lost their lives, and all those who were flooded in such extreme circumstances. During the debate on the levelling-up Bill, regarding the amendments on increasing flood protection, we established—and my noble friend will recall this because at the time we were on the shadow team for the precursor to Flood Re—that any house built after 2009 is not insured if it is built on a flood plain. Through the course of the debate on the amendment, we understood that mapping the divisions between zones 3a and 3b, which determine which flood plains can or cannot be built on, is the responsibility of local authorities. Will my noble friend explore to what extent this mapping is taking place so that planning authorities know where these houses can or cannot be built, and will he use his best offices to tackle surface water flooding? We are awaiting the implementation of Schedule 3 to the 2010 Act.

Lord Benyon: I thank my noble friend for her continued interest in this matter. She has reminded me that I did not respond to the point that the noble Baroness asked about building on flood plains. If we said that no more properties were to be built on flood plains—I know that this is not what she or my noble friend would say—we would be saying that there should be no more houses built in York, Leeds or even London and a great many other communities. What we want to see is flood-resilient homes being built, and there are plenty of examples in this country and around the world where you can build, in certain circumstances, flood-resistant housing on flood plains. But, by and large, we do not want to see this. The National Planning Policy Framework is very clear about this, and we have underpinned that recently.
My noble friend is right that Flood Re relates to houses built before that date, and that is one of the levers we are trying to apply to prevent the wrong kind of houses being built in the wrong place, but I will certainly look at the point she raises. Prior to Flood Re, 9% of policyholders with a prior flood claim could obtain flood insurance quotes from two or more insurers, and no one could get quotes from five or more. Following the scheme’s launch, most customers can now get more than 10 quotes. It has been a resounding success in supporting people for whom the fear of floods was dramatic; we would all like to see it extended. I point  out that the Build Back Better scheme gives an added value of £10,000 to a household not just to restore a house after flooding but to make sure that it does not flood again. I note her point about Schedule 3, which she constantly raises. She knows that we are consulting on it, and the Government have given a clear commitment to bringing that into force.

Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I send my respects to all those who so tragically lost their lives in Storm Babet, and to those who face such enormous challenges in rebuilding their lives. I thank my noble friend Lady Hayman for her outstanding response to the Government’s Statement. As well as thanking the Minister, I will ask a general question about flood defences in all areas of London, particularly the Thames Barrier. I heard some reports about it during the discussion of Storm Babet, and I want to understand what assessment the Government have made to ensure the barrier is safe and strengthened given, as he said, the extreme rain we have experienced of late.

Lord Benyon: In the wider context, the Government are investing £5.2 billion to build flood and coastal erosion schemes to better protect communities, and almost 60,000 properties are better protected. We tend not to tell the story of the houses that are not flooded; for obvious reasons, we concentrate on those that are. Some 314,000 properties were better protected through the Government’s £2.6 billion investment between 2015 and 2021. The Thames Barrier is vital to the security of this global city that we are in now, and some long-term work is going on around future-proofing it to adapt to rising sea levels and the constant improved data we have on east coast tidal surges. We have had some narrow misses in some communities up the east coast in the past. The Thames Barrier has worked, is regularly reviewed and is expertly managed, but in time, unless we can contain this planet to 1.5 degrees of warming, we have to look at that kind of infrastructure as something that we will need to modify and possibly replace with a larger scheme further on down the estuary.

Lord Bellingham: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the flooding in Suffolk, and I absolutely agree with what he said. Parts of Norfolk were also very badly affected. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, the first priority is the victims who tragically suffered death and injury in these floods. The next priority would be the quite dreadful damage to property —to homes, farms, livestock and infrastructure. But the third priority, down the list of priorities, is the widespread discharge of sewage from storm overflows. I gather that this was really severe in many areas. The sheer volume of water is going to mitigate that, to some extent, but there will be lasting impacts on local river habitats in some areas. What more are the water utilities going to do and how will the Government work with them on this agenda?

Lord Benyon: I thank my noble friend for his question. This is an absolute priority for the Government and we are putting in record sums. We want to see £52 billion spent by water companies on upgrading their sewage systems. I will give my noble friend an example: there are eight villages up a small chalk stream close to  where I live. Every one of those villages has increased in size by between 15% and 30% more households over the last few decades. While some attempts have been made to improve the sewage infrastructure up that river system, a lot more needs to be spent on it. It is now being spent on that and many other rivers, but we need to make sure that we look at this in the context of the vital necessity to protect the environment and the rare and wonderful chalk streams and other rivers that exist, including those close to where my noble friend lives. We also need to make sure that we consider the ability of that infrastructure to withstand the impact of storms, and that those are not just seen as an excuse, by some, to release more sewage into our environment.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, I join many others in offering my deepest sympathy to the families of those who tragically died in Storm Babet and those whose businesses and homes were torn apart by the flood-waters and the storm.
I am sure the Minister will join me in regretting another impact of the storm that was very visual on social media—the loss of fertile topsoil. To cite one example, a farmer in the east Midlands, Sarah Bell, posted a video of storm-water rushing down the lanes around her property. It was a very deep brown colour taking, as Sarah said, “precious” topsoil with it. This raises the point that time is passing by. Many times in the past, the Minister and I have discussed the protection of our soils and he has pointed me to the 25-year environment plan, which says that our soils must be sustainably managed by 2030. Looking at how much soil we have lost from erosion in just the last few days, can the Minister tell me what progress has been made in the past few months to get to a sustainable management of soil by 2030?

Lord Benyon: Like the noble Baroness, I saw that clip—at least I think it was the same one—and it is horrible to see this natural capital being swept into a river system, where it can clog up that environment or just disappear out to sea. What are we doing about it? These events will always happen and there will always be some movement of soil when a month’s rain falls in one and a half days, as happened in some areas. But we are working hard to make sure that we fulfil our commitment on sustainable soils. One example of the many that I could give is the new actions we have announced under the sustainable farming incentive, which will see farmers rewarded for planting species of deep tap-rooting legumes and certain grasses to make sure that they stabilise soils and get them to function like the proper ecosystems they should be. Farmers are being rewarded for moving to a regenerative system of agriculture that protects topsoil.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill
 - Commons Amendments

A message was brought from the Commons, That they insist on their amendment made to a Lords amendment to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill,  they insist on their amendment made in lieu of another Lords amendment, and they disagree with the amendments made by the Lords in lieu of amendments to which the Commons previously disagreed.

Motion A

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 151A and do not insist on its Amendments 151E and 151F in lieu.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Motion A I will also speak to Motion B.
We are here again to discuss the Bill for what I am pleased to say is, I hope, the last time. As my ministerial colleague in the other place, Kevin Hollinrake, said earlier today, the House of Commons has expressed its strong will on these remaining issues three times now. I therefore hope that noble Lords will support the Government’s Motions this evening. I will keep my remarks brief.
I start with government Motion A on the failure to prevent fraud threshold. My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier’s amendment would have brought medium-sized organisations into scope by exempting only micro-entities and small organisations from the offence. The Government do not support any lowering of the SME threshold that we introduced, and I will briefly repeat the reasons why.
It is already an offence to perpetrate fraud. The objective of the new offence is to ensure that there is accountability where fraud occurs in large organisations, so there is simply no need to apply any such offence to smaller organisations, and it is more straightforward to use existing powers against smaller, less complex companies. Every time an offence like this is introduced, business owners end up distracted from running their businesses by the need to assess their compliance risks, which often involves taking professional advice. We assess that the revised threshold proposed by this amendment would cause medium-sized enterprises £300 million in one-off costs and nearly £40 million in annual recurring costs.
As my ministerial colleague flagged this morning, we have future-proofed this legislation by including a delegated power to allow the Government to raise, lower or remove the threshold altogether. As with all legislation, the Government will keep the threshold under review and will make changes if there is evidence to suggest that they are required. I therefore urge all noble Lords to follow the will of the other place and support the government Motion to reinsert the SME threshold.
I move to Motion B on the amendment tabled previously by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, on cost protection in civil recovery cases. The Government remain of the view that this type of amendment would be a significant departure from a fundamental principle of justice—that of the loser pays—and therefore should not be rushed into without careful consideration. Furthermore, we have seen no clear evidence that this amendment would increase the number of cases taken on by law enforcement.
However, that is not to say that this type of amendment is necessarily a bad idea. That is why we have previously added a statutory commitment to the Bill to review the payment of costs in civil recovery cases in England and Wales by enforcement authorities and to publish a report on the findings and lay it before Parliament within 12 months.
Normally, with regard to civil cost reform in England and Wales, the Government would look to consult appropriate consultees, including the senior judiciary, the Law Society and the Bar Council. Enacting this reform now without a full review would not allow judges and relevant organisations, or their counterparts in Northern Ireland and Scotland, to comment on how it would be read and applied in practice. It would therefore be irresponsible for us to rush into making such a significant change at the end of the Bill without full consideration by Government and further scrutiny by Parliament. With that, I hope all noble Lords will agree that this is the responsible approach to take and therefore support the Government’s position.
In conclusion, I encourage all noble Lords to agree with the Government’s position on both areas. It is vital that we achieve Royal Assent without delay so that we can proceed to implement the important reforms in this Bill as quickly as possible. I beg to move.

Lord Fox: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his comments. It is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, here as well, because together, along with other colleagues, they have done a good job in bringing forward this important Bill, the objectives of which we all shared from the outset.
The debate we have had right across your Lordships’ House has not been party-political but about practicalities and aspirations for how this Bill will work when it finally gets Royal Assent. Thanks to this debate, there have been improvements as we have gone through the process. All noble Lords who have participated, not many of whom are here today, have added value to that process. That value has been recognised by Ministers, the ministerial team and indeed the departmental team in the way the Bill has changed during its progress through this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said that he hoped this would be the last time the Bill goes through this House, and I think he can see that it will be. But I hope it is not the last time we discuss its effects and what it seeks to achieve. Parts of the Bill are designed completely to overhaul the way Companies House operates. How that works, whether it works and the extent to which the abuses endemic in the system can be cracked down on will be a really important facet of the Bill.
Enforcement is very much within the remit of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the Bill’s effective enforcement is key to whether we succeed in bearing down on economic crime. All your Lordships support the enforcement agencies in their work, and in any opportunity we have to come back—whether through the secondary legislation opportunities provided in the Bill, or to review things going forward—enforcement will be vital to success.
I am happy that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned the two issues the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, set out. The extent to which the extension of this measure to smaller and medium-sized companies can be reviewed is an important point; it was noted during debates many times and I am pleased that the Minister took the opportunity to reiterate the position. I hope that in due course, the review of whether the rules need to extend to smaller companies does indeed happen, and we are able to see whether it is necessary.
Cost protection is a wide and important issue when looking at this aspect of economic crime, as is whether enforcement can be cost-effectively delivered when large, wealthy concerns are in the crosshairs of the authorities. I welcome the review; we look forward to its results and to having the opportunity to debate it when the time comes. In the meantime, your Lordships can be satisfied that they have more than thoroughly scrutinised the Bill, which leaves this House in a better state than when it arrived.

Lord Coaker: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Johnson and Lord Sharpe, have done an excellent job in improving the Bill; there are no two ways about that. It is probably incumbent on me at this point to remind noble Lords that the “failure to prevent” amendment was put into the Bill in your Lordships’ House, as were the protection from costs orders and the associated compromises. It would be remiss not to mention that.
Having said that, it is of course a little disappointing that the Government were not able to make further compromises, in particular the compromises that were moved in the other place by not only Dame Margaret Hodge but by two prominent Conservative Members of Parliament, Sir Robert Buckland and Sir Robert Neill. So there is clearly still concern around some of these issues, but it would be churlish not to recognise the progress that has been made and the fact that the Government are going to keep much of this under review. It will be interesting to see the results of that review in terms of how the legislation operates and whether it operates in the way the Government expect. It is important that Ministers keep on top of that to make sure that the legislation does what is expected of it. I have every confidence that the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Johnson, will do that. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Indeed, that has been a consistent refrain throughout the passage of the Bill, both in the other place and this place.
I will finish with this remark. The Bill is an important step forward, but the enforcement of it is everything. If laws that have been improved are not enforced, much of the debate and discussion we have had will not be as valuable as it should be. If the noble Lords, Lord Johnson and Lord Sharpe, can reinforce to their officials and the various agencies involved that enforcement is everything, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, we will all be reassured.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Fox, and other noble Lords who have been involved in the Bill, including the officials. We have a piece of legislation that is much improved from where we started, and I look forward to its implementation.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I thank both noble Lords for their very generous remarks and I speak as well on behalf of my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston, who asked me to make that clear.
We agree that the Bill leaves the House in a better state. The noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Coaker, are right that the Bill makes major changes, and we agree that the enforcement agencies have a major part to play. One of the aspects of the Bill that we can now start to get on with is making sure that Companies House is appropriately resourced, as obviously it will have a major part to play in any future delivery of the aspects of the Bill that we have been discussing for more than 400 days, I believe.
We should take this opportunity to thank the enforcement agencies for their past and future efforts. We know that this is a complex area, and without them we would all be in a much worse place. But, for now, this Bill leaves this House in a much better state. I thank, as I know my noble friend Lord Johnson would, both noble Lords on the Opposition Benches, and others from all Benches, for their engagement. Throughout the passage of the Bill the Government have worked hard to ensure the right balance between  tackling economic crime and ensuring that the UK remains a place where law-abiding businesses can flourish without unnecessary burdens. Having said that, I am quite sure we will return to some of these issues, as predicted—but, for now, I urge noble Lords to support the Government in their position.
Motion A agreed.

Motion B

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 161A in lieu and do not insist on its Amendment 161D in lieu.
Motion B agreed.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill
 - Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at 6.38 pm.